Students give mixed testimony on Montana campuses' handling of speech, prompting legislators to weigh remedies

Multiple current and former students told an interim HB 284 committee that Montana university policies and staff enforcement have chilled student speech and sometimes produced inconsistent outcomes. Witnesses described incidents they said ranged from grading based on viewpoint to enforcement of obsolete or unclear tabling and solicitation rules.

Hannah Allen, a longtime activist, traced legislative attempts and court outcomes going back to 2019 and said students "care about their rights, and they support legislation that further protects them." She offered survey data that she said showed strong student backing for protections and said she could provide methodology to staff.

Several witnesses who identified with Young Americans for Liberty described specific experiences at Montana State University (MSU): being told to move to an out‑of‑the‑way "free‑speech zone" after policies were reportedly rescinded; alleged university police review of student–faculty emails; and a COVID‑era attendance app they said resulted in membership lists being shared with administration. Dashiell Johnson, state chair for his student organization, said he was "shocked to be told that our right to free speech required a permission slip given that we were standing near a table."

By contrast, Buddy Wilson, president of the Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM), told the committee that UM "maintains clear processes to protect students' First Amendment rights" and described ASUM's routine recognition and funding of more than 140 clubs across the ideological spectrum. ASUM leaders said they employ legal staff who accompany students in academic hearings and help navigate remedies.

Committee members pressed witnesses on remedies, the availability of ombuds‑style assistance, and whether state constitutional protections (Article II) apply to the Board of Regents. Representative Overstreet walked the committee through litigation history around HB 102 and said he plans to sponsor legislation to "clean up this language and make it absolutely crystal clear that the Board of Regents is subject to Article 2, sections 4 through 12." Witnesses and members discussed the practical limits of litigation and the potential for legislative fixes or administrative remedies such as an ombuds.

The testimony prompted the committee to ask staff to draft a letter requesting university leadership consider ombuds positions and related training and policy clarity; the committee did not make findings on the truth of individual allegations and asked staff to draft recommendations for the next meeting.