Georgia committee hears opposition to HB 602, which would strip state aid for certain campus disruptions

The House Higher Education Committee on Thursday heard testimony on HB 602, a proposal from Representative Mark Fleming that would deny state scholarships and grants for two years to students convicted of, or found by their institution to have committed, specified violent or materially disruptive conduct on campus.

Supporters said the measure targets violent, harassing and vandalizing behavior that prevents other students from learning; opponents said the bill's language is overly broad, risks chilling constitutionally protected speech and would disproportionately harm low-income and minority students.

Representative Mark Fleming, the bill's author, told the committee the bill “upholds the rights of students, faculty, and administrators on our college campuses to be free from the infringement of their rights to study and work” and said the measure is not intended to punish peaceful protest but to “target individuals who use violence, vandalism, force, and harassment.” He added the Student Finance Commission, the University System of Georgia (USG) and the Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG) would be required to create sanction and appeal processes.

Representative Esther Panitch, a co-presenter, described reports from Jewish students who said they had been physically prevented from attending classes and said consequences are warranted for “physical violent actions which prevent other students from attending their classes.” She said the bill applies to students receiving state scholarships, loans or grants such as HOPE.

University faculty and campus witnesses urged changes. Noel McAfee, a philosophy professor at Emory University, said the bill’s aims—protecting expressive activity and preventing violence—are laudable but warned the measure is “incoherent” in places and that many arrests at recent campus demonstrations were for disorderly conduct or criminal trespass, which may not clearly map to the bill’s sanctions. McAfee said conduct codes “are designed to regulate student behavior on campus, not to invite state sanctions.”

Multiple student witnesses said the bill would strip the most vulnerable students of access to higher education. Maddie Morgan, a first-year student at Spelman College, said removing aid would “make higher education more inaccessible” and would disproportionately affect low-income, Black and brown students. Francesca Ruh, a Georgia Tech student, urged lawmakers to preserve second chances and “not deny anyone” routes to a better life by revoking aid.

Other public commenters highlighted constitutional and implementation concerns. A number of witnesses argued that the bill’s definition of “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” (which in testimony was described to include fighting, trespass, blocking ingress/egress, sustained noise and violating reasonable time, place and manner rules) is broad enough to capture classic nonviolent protests such as sit‑ins or loud counterprotests. One speaker said that because private colleges are not bound by the First Amendment, a “First Amendment” disclaimer in the bill would not protect students at private institutions.

Members of the committee pressed the author on specific provisions. Representative Clark asked whether the bill’s clause that mentions a criminal conviction and a separate institutional determination was intended to require both findings or either one; Fleming said the intent is “either/or” but acknowledged the language could be clarified. Committee members also asked about treatment of no‑contest pleas, pending appeals and whether sanctions would be retroactive; Fleming said retroactivity was not intended and that procedural details would be worked out in rules.

Committee members and witnesses repeatedly raised concerns that campus administrators or student conduct panels—unelected bodies, several witnesses noted—could be given broad power to trigger loss of state aid, creating what critics called an accountability gap and a risk of selective enforcement. Student organizer witnesses said disciplinary processes already vary widely across campuses and that adding a state sanction could amplify bias.

The committee did not take a vote on the bill during the hearing. Chairman Martin (House Higher Education Committee) and Representative Fleming invited stakeholders to submit suggested language and told speakers the measure would be worked on further before any committee action.

The bill drew sustained public comment: faculty, clergy and students asked for narrower definitions, clearer standards for institutional adjudication and explicit protections for nonviolent dissent. Several speakers invoked historical campus protests—particularly sit‑ins during the civil rights era—and urged lawmakers to avoid language that would chill such activity.

HB 602 will return to committee for further work; members urged those with suggested edits to provide them to the chair and the bill author.