“This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” That is an excerpt from the testimony of Tess Goodman, a Middletown resident and librarian at Wesleyan University. Goodman made this remark at a public hearing earlier this month for CT Senate Bill 980, dubbed the “Campus Safety” bill. I had the opportunity to witness her testimony in person.
I was unaware of the optimistically termed “Campus Safety” bill prior to my arrival to the hearing. My introduction to this bill would be the testimony of Noah Saben, a Jewish student at UCONN. His testimony was in favor of the bill, citing his own experiences facing antisemitism on campus. He said, “I have since been hesitant to proudly display my culture […] in fear that there were students around me who want me dead.”
This set the stage for a student-backed anti-discrimination bill. It sounded like a no-brainer; we needed to combat racial discrimination on campus in all forms. Then Noah sat down and a New Haven resident by the name of Amara E. stood up.
I sat back and listened to an increasingly disturbing illustration of this bill’s purpose. Amara outlined that this bill would disproportionately affect minorities and student protesters, as it would directly promote increased policing not only on campuses but the surrounding BIPOC communities.
In her words, “This bill would only protect and normalize such hate, leaving students and community members with fewer protections when standing up for their dignity and human rights […]”
Amara’s sentiment was not alone. According to the CT Mirror, there were 346 total testimonies presented to the committee and only 26 of these were in support of the “Campus Safety” bill. That translates to over 92% of testimony being in opposition to this bill. I can say that the public sentiment in the room was palpable. Tess Goodman used her testimony to further explain this ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’:
“At its core, the bill’s definitions of discrimination are vague, which means they can be disingenuously manipulated by far-right extremists and bad actors of all kinds.”
The bill is split into three subsections. The first, subsection A, defines what a “hate incident”, “intimidation”, “harassment”, and “threatening” means in the context of this bill. “Hate incident” is defined in the bill, while the other term definitions simply refer the reader to the general statutes for their definition.
The second subsection, B is the only subsection calling for an outcome to be carried out across all institutions of higher education. This requires the most scrutiny, as that means there is no choice in this subsection if this bill passes. Subsection B outlines that by September 1st, 2025, every institute shall appoint a Title IV coordinator for each campus to ensure all activity on said campus is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The duties defined for the Title VI coordinator are dealing with complaints of hate incidents & discrimination and coordinating education and training for employees on campus. They are also responsible for collecting data on student opinions of campus discrimination based on race, ethnicity or religion.
Now we get to the most controversial subsection, C, as it outlines the proposed policies for each institution to undertake no later than January 1, 2026. There are four different policies and the bill requires at least one of the policies to be implemented. These policies are as follows:
- Training for all staff in departments related to DEI, student affairs, and campus safety, on how to rapidly respond to hate incidents as soon as they occur.
- A procedure for investigating complaints regarding alleged hate incidents. This includes disclosing the results of a judicial hearing to the student in question no later than one day after it is over. This is in compliance with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.
- Creating a campus task force to combat any form of discrimination based on a person’s religious identity at said institution. The task force’s membership is detailed in the bill.
- Establishing a partnership between the designated campus police or safety personnel and local or state law enforcement to coordinate security for student groups “that are at a heightened risk, as determined by the president of such institution, of being the target of a terrorist attack, hate crime or violent act.”
To speak on the possibilities that could come from this, I will point to the major points of concern. The first would be at the start of the bill: the definition of a “hate incident”. Subsection A, Article 1 defines “hate incident” broadly, noting “intimidation, harassment and threatening” based on “a person’s actual or perceived race, religious identity or ethnicity”. As the protests at Columbia last Spring demonstrated, allegations of ‘antisemitism’ have been utilized to shut down and even arrest student voices based on perceived racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination.
Some may argue, how are we sure this bill would focus on antisemitism and not other forms of racial discrimination? That leads me to my second point. Subsection C, Article 3 states the first goal of a campus task force would be “to combat antisemitism”. While it then goes on to address Islamophobia and other forms of religious persecution, this is in bad faith. This bill largely empowers campuses to deal with public ‘hate incidents’ that occur on campuses as they are happening. These hate incidents that solicit rapid response are not small interpersonal discrimination between students (common for Islamophobia), rather they are directed toward large gatherings, rallies, or protests which are disproportionately labeled ‘antisemitic’ by university officials.
Finally, we come to the last point of concern, Subsection C, Articles 3 and 4. This first asks for the institution of higher education to implement a campus task force to quickly and decisively react to religious persecution. Then it calls for the establishment of a partnership between campus police & safety personnel and local or state law enforcement to coordinate ‘security’ on-campus. This is bad.
This bill not only gives our institutions the authority to create these task forces and police partnerships but allows them to bring police to patrol our campuses for perceived ‘hate incidents’. While this bill does not require it, this are the most enticing for our university administration. Why? Because they are actively being pressured into condemning pro-Palestine protests on campuses.
Thursday, April 4th, the Trump administration sent a list of demands to Harvard: requiring protesters to unmask and threatening to withdraw federal funding to ‘combat antisemitism’. This comes after similar letters have been sent to UPenn, Brown, Princeton, and Columbia. Last spring, 27 student protesters at Yale were arrested after a pro-Palestinian encampment.
The threat of our universities and colleges taking advantage of this legislation is at an all-time high. While our university administrations have varying degrees of support for the student body and even for Palestine, they also have a bottom line. We should not wait for them to make the moral decision. We should stand against this flawed legislation before it prompts these decisions.
By taking a stand, we have a chance at changing this. Senator Lesser, who introduced the bill, “has said he’s willing to consider removing the language involving policing, and reemphasized that his primary focus was on requiring Title VI coordinators at universities across the state.” Take note and speak out for the student body before it is too late, and hopefully we can get this wolf in sheep’s clothing into the spotlight.
WORKS CITED:
McCard, Amanda. “CT considers anti-hate speech rule for college campuses”.
News From The States. Mar 07, 2025
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ct-considers-anti-hate-speech-rule-college-campuses
Leave a Reply