{"id":311519,"date":"2026-06-18T09:21:15","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T09:21:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/311519\/"},"modified":"2026-06-18T09:21:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T09:21:15","slug":"fiu-seeks-to-discipline-students-over-silent-protest-against-ice-on-campus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/311519\/","title":{"rendered":"FIU seeks to discipline students over silent protest against ICE on campus"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 13, during a talk <\/a>with Florida International University President Jeanette Nu\u00f1ez and former baseball star Alex Rodriguez, a group of students stood up, unveiled shirts that said \u201cICE OFF FIU\u201d and then walked out of the room a few minutes later.<\/p>\n

Seven of those students \u2014 silently protesting the school\u2019s voluntary collaboration<\/a> with immigration enforcement \u2014 have since been charged with a violation of campus policy: They expressed their opinions indoors.<\/p>\n

Katya Tripathi, one of the students facing disciplinary charges for the action, told WLRN that she learned she was being charged in an email nearly a month after the silent protest. She was studying for her finals at the time.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u200aIt was completely silent. All we did was reveal our shirts and stand up for a few minutes, and after that we left of our own volition, of our own free will,\u201d Tripathi said.<\/p>\n

A disciplinary hearing for the charges is set to take place this Friday, on Juneteenth. The federal holiday is not recognized by the state government.<\/p>\n

The students are specifically accused of violating a regulation<\/a> on expressive activities on campus, particularly a section that says \u201cexpressive activities are prohibited inside University buildings.\u201d The stated reason for the regulation is to \u201cprevent disruption\u201d on campus.<\/p>\n

In an email included as part of the evidence in the case, Jehnny Rivera, FIU\u2019s executive director of the Office of University Protocol, Ceremonies, and Events estimated the students stood for \u201capproximately 3-5 minutes.\u201d Writing to an investigating officer, Rivera added that the short protest \u201cdid not disrupt the event, and the speakers were able to continue their discussion. No other attendees approached me directly to raise concerns about the incident.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since there was admittedly no disruption of the event, Tripathi feels that her right to speak her mind on campus is being directly attacked because of the message she carried. Political groups of all types operate on campus, she noted, and yet they have never been told they cannot express themselves indoors.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u200aI just feel really disappointed and as if my own free speech is being restricted because of my opinions on what FIU has been doing,\u201d Tripathi said. \u201cI\u2019m really disappointed in FIU right now.\u201d<\/p>\n

READ MORE: Florida public colleges follow universities in scrapping sociology from core curriculum<\/a><\/p>\n

WLRN asked FIU why those who applauded for Nu\u00f1ez and Rodriguez at the event were not similarly disciplined; a round of applause is expressive activity, but unlike a silent protest, applause creates noise.<\/p>\n

In a statement sent after publication, FIU senior director of media relations Madeline Bar\u00f3 wrote that school policy “prohibits demonstrations and protests from occurring inside its buildings, classrooms, and residence halls; all of which are spaces intended for instruction, study, reflection, group discussion, research, administrative functions, and other University activities and operations.”<\/p>\n

She wrote that the regulation is “clearly posted and articulated to our community,” and that “it allows for ample alternative locations for expressive activity, including outdoor areas of campus.”<\/p>\n

“Most importantly, the University administers these viewpoint neutral policies consistently and in accordance with the First Amendment and state and federal law,” she said.<\/p>\n

\"Students<\/p>\n

Students protest Florida International University’s partnership with federal immigration policies on Friday, March 13, 2026. The protest outside took place after the protest inside the event where FIU President Jeanette Nu\u00f1ez and baseball star Alex Rodriguez spoke.<\/p>\n

The issue facing the seven FIU students is a straightforward attack on freedom of speech, said Adam Saper, a staff attorney at the Community Justice Project, a local non-profit that is representing the students pro-bono.<\/p>\n

The case law is so clear that the university cannot discipline the students that Saper told WLRN he is in disbelief that the school is moving forward with the charges. He said it is a matter of Law 101, and that he explained so much to university attorneys during a recent hearing.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u200aI turn to the lawyer, the office general counsel guy who’s there, and I go, \u2018Hey, man. Like, day one, class one, law school \u2014 you remember the black armbands case? You’re a public school. You can’t discipline a student for non-disruptive activity,\u2019” said Saper.<\/p>\n

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school had previously banned wearing the armbands, and threatened to suspend any student who did so. Five students who wore the armbands were suspended.<\/p>\n

The resulting U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, is one of the landmark free speech decisions of the 20th century. In a 7-2 decision, the nation’s highest court ruled against the school district, saying that students and teachers do not \u201cshed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Simply wearing an armband did not cause any disruption of the school, the court ruled \u2014 it was an issue of \u201cpure speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

Saper said there are \u201calmost identical\u201d parallels between the two cases, and that in both cases students only wanted to \u201cspeak out against the establishment of their parents, of the school, of the administration, of those in power.\u201d<\/p>\n

Students of the \u201cICEbreakers<\/a>\u201d group on campus had previously pushed to meet President Nu\u00f1ez and FIU police chief Alexander Casas to discuss campus immigration policies, but neither would meet with them. Saper said the only other way students had to express themselves directly to the duo was to mount the silent protest.<\/p>\n

To make the case against the seven students even more confounding, FIU\u2019s own definition<\/a> of \u201cexpressive\u201d activities specifies that those activities are \u201cprotected under the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey’re saying you are not allowed to exercise your First Amendment. You’re not allowed to express yourself inside a university building,\u201d said Saper. \u201cThis is the reading that they are using to prosecute these kids.\u201d<\/p>\n

FIU can create any policy on student conduct that it wants, said Saper, but if the rules violate the U.S. Constitution, they should be disregarded and never enforced. Relatively recent cases in Florida illustrate this dynamic.<\/p>\n

In 2008, the Northern District of Florida federal court held<\/a> that it was blatantly unconstitutional when the Holmes County school district banned students from wearing or displaying material that advocated for fair treatment of the LGBTQ community. And in 2013 the Middle District of Florida federal court ruled<\/a> that the De Soto County school district violated a lesbian student\u2019s free speech when it suspended her for participating in a National Day of Silence in support of LGBTQ rights. In both cases, courts found that the actions did not disrupt school activities.<\/p>\n

Notably, in the 2013 case the court ruled that because the student\u2019s right to free speech was \u201cclearly established at the time of the violation\u201d that district officials could not benefit from \u201cqualified immunity,\u201d meaning that they could be personally held liable for damages.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u200aI don’t know if FIU’s Office of General Counsel has communicated that to the individuals who are conducting this disciplinary process,\u201d said Saper. \u201cWhich is the irony of this whole thing \u2014 is they’re charging the students with breaking a conduct code, but in bringing those charges, they are violating the actual law. They are violating the highest law of this land, which is our Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

If sustained, students could face everything from a written reprimand to expulsion from the university, said Saper: \u201c\u200aThere’s really sort of no protection for them going into this process, in that the outcome could be whatever this panel decides.”<\/p>\n

For her part, Tripathi wants to get back to focusing on her studies as a computer engineering major. She simply wants the charges dismissed. But she hopes people learn about the “oppressive things FIU is doing to its students\u201d and that the university changes its policies.<\/p>\n

\u201cI also hope that it draws more attention to the 287(g) agreement, and pressures FIU to end its collaboration with ICE, which is obviously our end goal and why we did that protest in the first place,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

This story has been updated with a statement sent by FIU after publication.<\/p>\n