Key Points:

• Overnight college encampments could be banned under HB2880

• The bill was created in response to antisemitic protests 

• Some lawmakers argue the regulations are “unconstitutionally vague”

State lawmakers are preparing to make it illegal to set up “encampments” on community college and university campuses — complete with language forcing university officials to enforce it.

Legislation awaiting a final Senate vote would ban anyone from setting up temporary shelters, including tents that are used to remain on campus overnight or for “for a prolonged period of time.”

Its prime sponsor, Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, said the measure is a response to pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests last year in Arizona. While nowhere near as long as more highly publicized incidents at places like Columbia University, she said ASU’s protests led to Jewish students feeling harassed and being forced to take alternate routes through campus.

However, lawmakers are opposing the plan, calling it “unconstitutionally vague” and a threat to free speech rights.

There is no question that House Bill 2880 would prohibit multi-day encampments, but what else could be forbidden is less clear.

Rep. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, pointed out during the debate this past week that the legislation would ban shelters for a “prolonged” period of time, which is not defined in the legislation.

“Students could be criminally charged and punished for setting up installations that are not meant to serve as overnight structures,” said Ortiz.

Consider, she said, sun shade structures that could be set up by Turning Point USA, a conservative organization that registers college and university students to vote.

“Could they be banned from doing that for a ‘prolonged period of time’ because this doesn’t define exactly what that means?” Ortiz asked. She said it also could endanger Native American students setting up tepees on campus to celebrate their culture, or even the farmers’ market that is set up on the U of A campus.

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, scoffed at the idea that what’s in HB2880 would outlaw any of those activities.

Kavanagh reads the legislation as banning only non-transient tents and structures. He said encampments that restrict the rights of other students are the real issue.

“These people are taking public university land and appropriating it, seizing it for themselves so other people can’t use it,” he said. Kavanagh also reiterated that there have been cases elsewhere where anti-Semitic groups “are intimidating Jewish students and removing their right to free movement around the campus.”

That answer didn’t satisfy Ortiz. She said if Kavanagh believes the measure is designed only to outlaw overnight camping, then it should not include the more nebulous and undefined language about setting up tents for a prolonged period.

“‘Prolonged’ means a long time,” Kavanagh responded, saying he was satisfied with that language. And in a bid to test whether that was her key objection to the bill, he asked Ortiz if she would support HB2880 if it was amended to outlaw only overnight camping.

She would not respond.

Rep. Kevin Payne, R-Peoria, rejected the idea that the measure could be interpreted to restrict otherwise legitimate activity.

“Farmers’ markets at 4 in the morning?” he said. “That seems a little odd.”

But Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, urged colleagues not to impose new restrictions on campuses.

“These spaces are long-standing spaces for public discourse, academic inquiry and political dissent,” Kuby said.

She cited her own experiences at the University of Chicago, where she attended in the 1970s, during a time of campus protests.

“It amounted to a learning opportunity for people to really understand the issues and the unprecedented threats we had towards peace in those days,” Kuby said. “Public education has to remain a robust space for dialog, not a testing ground for censorship and retaliation.”

She also rejected the argument that the legislation is needed to combat anti-Semitism.

“These bills that we’re hearing are not only unnecessary,” Kuby said. “They’re political overreaches that will endanger students’ rights and public trust.”

And there’s something else.

A law governing free speech on campuses already allows universities to impose “reasonable viewpoint and content-neutral restrictions on time, place and manner of expression” necessary to “achieve a compelling institutional interest.”

What’s in HB2880, however, appears to be stricter.

It not only bars any encampment, but actually requires the university or college president to direct the group to immediately dismantle it and advise them that the failure to do so makes them guilty of criminal trespass. And if participants do not comply, the president is then required to report them to law enforcement.

“This bill would force campus police to enforce a prohibition on encampments, even if the police believe it is not in the interest of public safety,” Ortiz said.

The legislation also requires that disciplinary action must be taken against students who refuse to leave.

Hernandez, in a prepared statement read to senators before the debate, said nothing in her legislation prohibits people from protesting. Instead, she said, it is designed to bar structures which she said are already prohibited on campus.

“This is to ensure we are creating a safe environment for all students,” the statement read.

HB2880 is expected to have a roll-call vote in the Senate this coming week. It cleared the House earlier this month by a 41-17 margin, with some lawmakers from both parties opposing it.