Colorado State University senior Amber Wright sat on the Lory Student Center Plaza Oct. 7, chalk in hand, surrounded by puddles of water, colorful smears and the remnants of chalked messages. She drew arrows pointing to the puddles, accompanied by the bright orange words “RIP Free Speech.”

Chalking on The Plaza has long been an outlet for free speech and expression at the university. While the free speech zones on CSU’s campus are not limited to The Plaza, it is where chalking, tabling, debating and messaging are most commonly found.

For two months, largely unbeknownst to the university community, the policy that allowed for this expression — alongside other speech guidelines — was rescinded.

Oct. 7 marked the two-year period of the current Israel-Hamas war, which the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has recognized as a genocide. Members of Students for Justice in Palestine, students carrying Israel flags as well as other standard CSU departments and programs hosting tabling events were present on The Plaza that day. Also present were members of the CSU Police Department and a few members of university administration who watched as Facilities Management power-washed chalk messages off the ground that did not comply with the revised policy.

“Importantly, at the very start of the day when we started chalking, some of our messages were more like, ‘Free Gaza,’ ‘Free Palestine,’ ‘680,000 dead,’” Wright said. “They brought out a truck so that they could begin hosing down our messages. At that point, they erased everything on the north (end) of The Plaza that had those messages. They have left our other messages alone — the ones that were entirely compliant. But then, they began following us, essentially, and actively monitoring what we were writing as we were writing it.”

Wright said that Marc Barker, assistant vice president of CSU Safety and Risk Services, warned her that she was trespassing and claimed he would have her arrested if she continued chalking. When Wright asked nearby CSUPD officers if she could be charged with trespassing, they said the most that they could do is charge her with disorderly conduct, contradicting Barker’s statement.

“(Barker) said at one point that if I do not follow the policy, he will be forced to ask me to leave, and then if I do not leave, then he will consider getting me for trespassing,” Wright said. “I am a CSU student. I graduate in December. I am an actively enrolled CSU student with no conduct violations, and he threatened to have me removed for trespassing.”

CSU’s 2025 Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly policy was revised Aug. 14 and, following a week of student and staff demonstrations, it was revoked Oct. 9. The current free speech policy linked in the CSU policy library is the 2022 version.

The Collegian obtained a copy of the 2025 policy before it was removed. Key differences between the two that sparked universitywide response include an item line stating “Chalking is permitted only on the LSC Plaza and is limited to publicizing official programming or events sponsored by a CSU college, division or office or any of CSU’s recognized student organizations or groups. Each chalked message should include the name, time and location of the event/programming as well as the identity of the CSU entity or group sponsoring the event. Chalking for events/programming may not be done earlier than five business days prior to the event/programming. Chalking is not allowed for other forms of Expressive Activity unless otherwise authorized by the University.”

Claire Pickerel, a graduate student, first heard about the newly enacted policies at a Faculty Council meeting when a member said there had been substantial changes to the speech policy that no one had heard about.

“I think that this is a commonly shared sentiment across students; any change, any crackdown on speech is generally considered to be a bad thing,” Pickerel said. “Any crackdown on our First Amendment is not ideal at a minimum.”

Pickerel contacted the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression with concerns over the policy.

“Chalking, in particular, (was) one of the major concerns, (as) chalking doesn’t really have any major rulings on it from any courts,” Pickerel said. “There are a few courts that have ruled in favor of those who chalk, and usually that’s when they have evidence that the way this policy is being enforced … was enforced unfairly against this individual, and we’re still talking about if that’s happening because it may be.”

Like Wright, Pickerel said the majority of erased chalk messages included statements in support of Palestine, but other statements like, “Have a nice day!” and, “Proud to be a CSU Ram!” were also erased. Further policy changes included prohibiting protest on “uneven surfaces” — such as The Stump, the Administration Building and other steps or curbs — citing safety risks, Pickerel said.

“When I look at the way in which this policy was edited, I believe that there is a necessitated requirement for CSU to undergo some higher level of oversight by the community, and I think that should come in many forms,” Pickerel said. “And from what I’m seeing from this morning from a variety of different emails, CSU recognizes that and they’re going to commit to it, but I’m going to hold them to it. And we should all hold them to it because enforcing a policy, creating a policy like this and (then) saying you’re not enforcing it, which was a repeated thing that I heard … from people high in the university, (is not OK). … You expect me, as an employee, to feel safe when you are enforcing a policy (and) claiming you’re not enforcing it?”

Following the chalking erasure Oct. 7, organizations on Instagram including @thepeopleunitedcsu posted information about opportunities for students to publicly speak about the new policies at the Oct. 8 Associated Students of CSU Senate session, as well as during public comment during the Oct. 9-10 CSU Board of Governors regular meeting, which took place on campus in the LSC.

Earlier in the day on Oct. 8, CSU hosted its annual Fall Address and University Picnic event on The Oval. A handful of students showed up with signs that read, “Does my chalk hurt your ego?” and, “Who would win? A piece of chalk or CSU admin?”

Among those present was Michael May, co-chair of CSU’s chapter of Young Democratic Socialists of America.

“I thought a really interesting point was brought up by President Parsons herself when she talked about democratization,” May said during his public comment at ASCSU Senate later that night. “It’s sort of the attempt to bring an institution into more democratic values, trying to reflect the will of the people in an institution. It’s a very idealistic goal. It’s a very good one. … Is unitary action taken without the consultation of faculty, without the consultation of students, the sort of unilateral passing of a policy of ‘democratization?’ Does this seem like democratization to anyone in this room?”

Numerous students, both in and out of ASCSU, showed up to speak out against the policy adjustments, including Ben Gregg, ASCSU’s director of unified success and formerly a member of the Presidential Ambassadors cohort.

“They changed what the word ‘peaceful’ means, even though we all know that the words ‘peaceful protest’ have only ever been used to tell Black and Brown people that what they are doing and the way they are doing it is wrong, is too loud, is too disruptive,” Gregg said during public comment. “There is a reason why the administration changed their policy to not allow protesters on raised surfaces or stairs. Just look at their precious administration building. They say, ‘Be peaceful,’ when what they really mean is keep the Black and Brown students off of our doorstep, because I need to enjoy my morning coffee. What they really mean is, ‘Follow our rules.’”

Gregg said his value system motivated him to speak out.

“I refuse to comply with an institution who preaches free speech and platforming a hateful racist, like Charlie Kirk, (but) when Black and Brown students make some noise, suddenly what we are doing is a breach of their comfort,” Gregg said. “I refuse to comply with an institution that washed away the words, ‘Stop bombing children,’ while the student was still in the process of chalking them. I refuse to comply with an institution who cares more about limiting the voices of their student body than a Black Lives Matter mural being defaced on our campus. I refuse to comply with an institution that will watch our country’s descent into darkness and do nothing but support it.”

Gregg also delivered an impromptu statement at the Board of Governors meeting, specifically directed at Parsons.

“I have shared many dinner tables with President Parsons,” Gregg said. “I’ve been in many spaces with President Parsons wearing many photos, holding up the Ram sign together. And so from that perspective, as someone who, on a student level, has been close to her, I felt very disappointed.”

Gregg said he was informed Oct. 9 that, as a result of his actions, he had been removed from the Presidential Ambassador schedule for all Homecoming week events. According to Gregg, administration informed him that they were “letting tensions cool down.” Following the meeting, Gregg decided to step down from the Presidential Ambassador position.

“I let my adviser know that was not the intention, and it was merely to express my disappointment in how the university administration has conducted themselves around this free speech policy,” Gregg said. “I mean, the lack of transparency about something that impacts a lot of students and a lot of student advocacy on campus, … those are two realms that I’m very involved in.”

Gregg said that while he identified himself as a Presidential Ambassador, he clarified that he was not speaking from that position.

“I think if you truly care for something, you will call it out when it’s wrong, and so I just felt like it’s what I had to do,” said Gregg. “I said I’m a PA, and I felt like it was not letting tensions cool off. I felt like I was being punished. … I felt like there was a growing divide in my values and the values of the president’s office at CSU, and it was only a matter of time until something happened, or until the next time I spoke out. (I thought), ‘Am I going to get punished again?'”

Gregg said he received an outpouring of support for his decision from colleagues in the program.

“I felt like a large reason why I became a Presidential Ambassador initially was to be a student advocate in spaces where a lot of students aren’t able to go,” Gregg said. “And I felt like that one piece was just ripped away from me.”

The other major adjustment to the 2025 Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly policy concerned faculty speech. The revised policy introduced a section titled ‘Employee Speech,’ which was not a part of the 2022 version. Notably, this section restricts employees’ ability to speak in their official capacities.

“When speaking in their official capacity or as a representative of the university, employees are expected to uphold the university’s mission and values,” the policy reads. “Speech made in an employee’s official capacity may be subject to institutional oversight and is subject to university and Colorado State University System policies.”

The new Employee Speech section also specifies that if employees are to engage in “Expressive Activities” — which is defined in the policy as any conduct that is protected by the First Amendment and intended to convey ideas, beliefs or opinions — they must do so as private citizens.

“When engaged in Expressive Activities as a private citizen, employees should not make any representations, implied or express, that could objectively be interpreted as though they are acting on behalf of the university or in their official capacity, including but not limited to, using their university title or referencing their connection to the university,” the policy reads.

Following collaboration with Pickerel, a letter addressing the new free speech policy from FIRE raised concerns about the restrictions placed on faculty.

“CSU has failed to meet its ‘heavy burden’ of justifying why faculty must seek their university’s approval before engaging in a wide array of anodyne outside communications,” the letter reads. “The university system’s broad language prevents faculty from mentioning their affiliation in a guest blog, opinion editorial or even a conference presentation. Moreover, even a single unapproved email to a journalist signed with a CSU signature line could subject a faculty member to punishment.”

Following the events on The Plaza Oct. 7, CSU President Amy Parsons gave a statement regarding the recent change to the Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly policy to the Faculty Council at their monthly meeting. Parsons addressed concerns over the restrictive nature of the policy, acknowledging that the Office of General Counsel was currently revising the policy.

“The first set of revisions restricted — and I’m just talking about The Plaza and the chalking — anything but events; that’s time, place and manner,” Parsons said, “People can put their events, when they are, who they are, the time — that type of thing. Personally, I think that’s a little too restrictive. I appreciate what they were trying to do on that, so I have proposed for adding in more content-neutral categories like political speech, not to cover elections and ballot issues, because I want to see campaigning on campus. I think the OGC agreed with me on that, (and) they’re working through those revisions.”

In referencing time, place and manner restrictions, Parsons addressed a legal principal wherein a governing body may place restrictions on speech — such as the number of protesters present at a rally, the time organizers may protest and the nature of the movements — most notably noise restrictions, as long as such restrictions do not discriminate against viewpoints. Most recently, time, place and manner restrictions were imposed when The Plaza was closed from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Sept. 18, the day of the Turning Point USA vigil for Charlie Kirk, as well as the CSU Political Review’s event in partnership with National Ground Game.

SB17-062, a Colorado state law passed in 2017, prohibits universities from restricting time, place and manner of speech without justifiable reason to do so.

Parsons also addressed concerns over the fast-track process the policy had taken for approval, stating it had been moved into the regular decision process.

“(Staff) let me know that they were concerned that this (policy) was going through a fast-track process and it wasn’t allowing for sufficient engagement,” Parsons said during her comment. “I agree with them on that, so we pulled the policy out of the process, opened it up for feedback (and it) went through six weeks or so … going and gathering feedback from various groups around campus, and that’s what’s working their way through it right now. I personally believe that that fast-track process does have a place, but I think it should be used sparingly.” 

Parsons also acknowledged the changes to the Employee Speech section of the policy. 

“There’s a lot of different pieces that govern this employee speech part of it,” Parsons said. “We can take it out of this policy. It didn’t used to be in there, (so) we can take it back out. My opinion on that is let’s try to get a policy that’s actually helpful to people so they know what the law is, because it is what it is, whether it’s in the policy or not. So I can tell by the revisions that they’ve made a lot of clarifications about official capacity and incorporating academic freedom and things like that in there.”

Representatives of the Faculty Council expressed their concerns about the new policy at the meeting, addressing President Parsons directly. Karrin Vasby Anderson, a professor of communication studies and a representative of the Faculty Council, provided a statement to The Collegian following the reinstatement of the 2022 policy.

“I’m pleased that President Parsons made the decision to revert to our former Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly policy, which has worked well for our campus,” Anderson said in her statement. “The events of the past two weeks illustrate, however, how easy it is for free speech and academic freedom to be eroded. And it also provided a concrete example of what the implications of policy changes can be. Do we want to be a campus where security officers follow students around, policing what they say in the ‘free speech zone?’ I don’t think anyone wants that.”

Anderson spoke further on the implications of restricting free speech as a public university, encouraging CSU to stand firm in its commitment to open expression and academic independence.

“Revising policies that protect political expression and academic freedom have the potential to fundamentally change who we are and interfere with our most important mission as a public university,” Anderson said in her statement. “There’s a lot of pressure from the federal government to do exactly that. That is precisely why it’s more important than ever for the whole CSU community to work together and find creative and effective ways to resist authoritarian demands.”

Colorado State University provided The Collegian with a statement surrounding the speech changes.

“After hearing feedback from employees and students, we recognized that the rollout of the policy created confusion and so CSU decided to reinstate the policy as previously written,” the statement reads. “With our campus partners, we will review processes going forward. We appreciate the feedback and engagement from our campus community and remain committed to a transparent and collaborative process.”

As students and staff were informed of the adjustment to the policy and the subsequent reinstatement of the 2022 policy, they continued to call for more transparency from the administration surrounding First Amendment activity.

“People can claim that this was in an attempt to protect us, but protecting federal funding and saying that’s protecting your students is not protection of your students when you violate their rights,” Pickerel said. “That’s oppression that is silencing students, silencing faculty, silencing members of our community for federal dollars, and I don’t think that’s worth it.”

Reach Allie Seibel and Claire VanDeventer at news@collegian.com or on social media @RMCollegian.