Georgia committee hears bill to strip state aid for students convicted of violent or disruptive campus conduct

At a hearing of the House Higher Education Committee, lawmakers and dozens of students, faculty and community advocates heard testimony on House Bill 602, legislation that would allow the state to deny scholarships, grants or loans for up to two years to students convicted of, or found through an institution's disciplinary process to have committed, violent, harassing or materially disruptive conduct on college campuses.

The bill's author, Representative Fleming, described HB 602 as aimed at protecting campus learning environments while preserving the right to peaceful protest. "This bill does not limit the effect or affect that right," Representative Fleming said, and "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." He told the committee the Student Finance Commission, the University System of Georgia (USG) and the Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG) would create an appeals process for any sanction.

Supporters of the bill argued it targets unlawful conduct such as vandalism, assault and physical obstruction of access to campus buildings and events. Representative Esther Panitch, who spoke in favor, said the measure addresses incidents in which students are physically prevented from attending classes: "If you are convicted or found in violation of the honor code, then you should have your state benefits stripped. These are privileges, not rights," she said.

Opponents said the bill's language is overly broad and vague and would chill constitutionally protected speech, be applied unevenly, and disproportionately harm low-income and marginalized students. Noel McAfee, professor and chair of the philosophy department at Emory University, said the First Amendment is not unlimited but warned the bill's enforcement mechanism is unclear and risks sweeping in nonviolent conduct such as sit-ins and chants. "It's also content and viewpoint neutral," McAfee said of the principle the bill purports to follow, but added he was "worried that this bill's means for achieving them are incoherent."

Students from several institutions described campus organizing traditions and said the bill could punish typical protest tactics. Maddie Morgan, a first-year student at Spelman College, said the legislation could make higher education unaffordable for low-income students: "By removing state financial aid from students punished for protest related activities, HB 602 ... gives universities and colleges a basis for discrimination." Francesca Ruh, a Georgia Tech student, urged second chances for students who make mistakes and warned against compounding criminal penalties with loss of education.

Other witnesses raised enforcement questions. Several speakers noted the bill appears to rely on campus disciplinary processes as well as criminal convictions, and asked how appeals, ambiguous charges such as disorderly conduct or criminal trespass, and conduct on private campuses would be handled. Reverend Kiana Jones Moore said the bill could amount to "excessive and extreme punishment" and cautioned that the language could be used selectively.

Committee members pressed the author on specific phrasing in the draft, including whether the bill requires both a criminal conviction and an institutional finding or whether either condition would trigger loss of aid. Representative Fleming said the author's intent was that either condition could apply, and that the Student Finance Commission and campus systems would set appeals procedures. Several lawmakers and witnesses said that interpretation and other ambiguities need clarification.

No formal vote was taken. The chair and members encouraged stakeholders to submit suggested language and said the bill would be revised and returned to committee for further consideration. The committee's final remarks urged authors and interested parties to provide proposed fixes to the chair and bill sponsor so the measure could be refined.

The discussion tied together questions about campus safety, the boundaries of protected protest, institutional disciplinary authority, and the financial consequences of criminal or conduct findings for students receiving state aid.