Split at public hearing over bill to require campus hate-incident coordinators, with opponents warning of surveillance and policing

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee heard more than 200 public commentators Wednesday on SB 980, a proposed law that would require each campus to designate a Title VI coordinator, set reporting procedures for bias incidents and establish campus task forces to respond to hate incidents.

Supporters said the measure would give students a clear point of contact and consistent processes across campuses. David Warren, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford, told the committee, "This bill does not censor controversial opinions or academic inquiry. It simply clarifies how colleges should respond to behavior that goes beyond protected expression." He urged the committee to adopt the bill to ensure clearer, fairer responses to threats and harassment.

But the hearing made clear the bill is deeply divisive. Student leaders, faculty and civil‑rights advocates said the bill’s language — especially provisions that reference partnerships among campus, local and state police and the creation of campus task forces — could be used to expand surveillance, chill dissent and criminalize peaceful protest. Noah Sabin, a University of Connecticut student, described feeling targeted on campus after violent demonstrations last year and told lawmakers the bill offered a needed remedy; by contrast, numerous student and faculty speakers argued policing measures would produce harm.

Senator Matt Lesser, who described the bill’s central aim as establishing Title VI coordination on campus, told the committee the intent was to "provide a consistent way to protect students on campus from racial discrimination." He also acknowledged concerns about policing language and suggested the committee consider removing or narrowing provisions referencing law enforcement, saying the core purpose is Title VI coordination.

Opponents repeatedly warned that vague definitions and open-ended duties could be used to police political speech and target activists. Amara, a New Haven resident, testified, "The proposed bill would have a negative impact on students, faculty and community members by subjecting them to heightened surveillance and police brutality." Librarian Tess Goodman called the bill "a wolf in sheep's clothing," saying it would create a pipeline to surveillance and “undermine academic freedom.”

Committee members did not vote at the hearing. Lawmakers and witnesses signaled the bill could be revised in response to concerns raised at the hearing; several supporters urged narrowing or removing policing language while keeping requirements for a point person and transparent procedures.

What happened next: the bill’s sponsor indicated he might revise language to focus on Title VI coordination and remove or narrow the law‑enforcement partnership language. No committee vote or formal action on SB 980 was recorded at the public hearing.

Why it matters: the measure would standardize how Connecticut’s colleges and universities receive and investigate allegations of bias and discrimination, but critics warned that, as written, it could expand surveillance and risk disciplinary or criminal consequences for students exercising free expression. Lawmakers must weigh disputed definitions and the bill’s practical effects on campus policing and civil liberties.

Context: testimony came from hundreds of students, faculty and community members representing a wide range of views. Several witnesses referenced federal proposals and advocacy documents — including the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther and recent executive orders at the federal level — as background for their concerns about expanded campus policing.

The committee has not taken a final vote; members said they will consider amendments and additional briefings before any legislative action.