Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Free Speech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students and advocates urge repeal of law that can strip aid for campus demonstrations
Summary
House Bill 1343 would narrow or repeal a decades‑old rule making students ineligible for financial aid for participating in a demonstration that 'disrupts' campus; students and free‑speech groups urged complete repeal of the provision and said student conduct codes already cover harmful behavior.
House Bill 1343 would modify the state rule that makes students ineligible for state financial aid if they “organize or participate in any demonstration, riot, or other activity that interferes with or disrupts the normal educational process.” The bill was the subject of a Jan. 29 hearing that drew student leaders and free‑speech advocates urging repeal of the statutory language.
Committee staff Saranda Ross summarized the proposed change: the bill removes the term “riot or other activity” and conditions aid ineligibility on a formal institutional finding that the student, in violation of the code of conduct, engaged in discriminatory or harassing conduct intended to cause harm, or was convicted of a felony involving physical harm or property destruction in connection with a demonstration.
Representative Gerry Pollet (46th District), who sponsored the bill, described the existing statute as “an anachronism” that risks punishing constitutionally protected participation in demonstrations. “This is the current law is an anachronism that is frankly embarrassing,” Pollet said, and he acknowledged earlier drafts were over‑complex and that he would accept an amendment that strikes the provision entirely, as student leaders requested.
Student leaders and free‑speech groups testified in favor of full repeal. Collin Bannister of the Washington Student Association asked the committee to adopt an amendment to repeal the entire RCW, saying existing institutional codes of conduct already address misconduct and criminal behavior. Sienna Girard of Associated Students at UW Bothell said the provision “unfairly targets low income students who rely on financial aid” and duplicates campus disciplinary systems.
Huskies for Liberty, a student group, supported the bill’s narrowing language and emphasized First Amendment considerations in written testimony.
Where things stand: committee members asked technical questions about whether campus conduct codes are uniform; sponsors and student groups urged repeal rather than partial revision. No committee vote was taken at the hearing; members were receptive to amendments to simplify or repeal the statutory language.
Implications: if the legislature removes or narrows this statute, enforcement of misconduct would remain with campus conduct codes and criminal justice processes rather than an automatic financial‑aid sanction tied to participation in demonstrations.
