Supporting The Request By The University Of Hawaii At Manoa Faculty Senate For A Commitment From University Of Hawaii Leaders To Remain Steadfast In Vigorously Defending Any And All Students, Faculty, Or Staff Who May Be Attacked For Exercising Their Rights To Academic Freedom And Free Speech.
SR168 is a Senate resolution expressing support for the University of Hawaii at Manoa Faculty Senate’s request that University of Hawaii leaders commit to vigorously defending students, faculty, and staff who are criticized, disciplined, or otherwise targeted for exercising academic freedom and free speech. The resolution specifically endorses the Faculty Senate’s February 18, 2026 resolution opposing the university’s proposed revisions to Executive Policy 10.206 governing time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activities.
The measure frames the issue as part of a broader concern that restrictive campus speech policies can chill protest, political expression, and academic discourse. It cites the University of Hawaii community’s history of activism and argues that the university should strengthen, rather than limit, expressive rights during a period of heightened pressure on civil liberties and higher education institutions.
SR168 does not amend state statutes or create new legal requirements; it is a nonbinding legislative resolution that communicates the Senate’s position to University of Hawaii leadership. Its practical effect is to place political pressure on the Board of Regents, the university president, and the Manoa Faculty Senate to protect expressive rights and reconsider proposed time, place, and manner restrictions. The resolution may influence university policy discussions affecting students, faculty, staff, protests, demonstrations, and other expressive activities on campus.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of academic freedom, free speech, and campus protest rights. The bill text presents the university community as vulnerable to overbroad restrictions and urges solidarity with those who may face retaliation for expression. No committee votes or hearing transcripts are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or amendment history in the supplied materials.
The central point of contention is the University of Hawaii’s proposed revision of Executive Policy 10.206, especially the scope of its time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activities. Supporters of the resolution argue that the policy would deter speech and create an antagonistic relationship between administration and the campus community, while the underlying policy rationale likely concerns institutional order, safety, and regulation of demonstrations. The dispute is therefore between advocates for broad expressive rights and those favoring tighter administrative control over campus protest and speech rules.