Tipsheet

UCLA Is in Hot Water Over Free Speech, and Here's Why

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  April 30, 2026 8:30 AM

UCLA has had problems with free speech on campus recently. Back in February, Bari Weiss had to cancel a speech at the campus, citing the virulence of the expected student protests, and a petition calling for the event's cancellation had more than 10,000 signatures.

Now the school is back in the spotlight, this time for threatening the campus chapter of the Federalist Society if the group publicly identified students who disrupted its event with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lawyer last week.

But UCLA did nothing when those protesters named members of the Federalist Society online.

The entire post reads:

But when protesters named chapter members online? No signs of concern from @UCLA_law. This double standard is striking and sounds First Amendment alarms.

The First Amendment protects students’ right to share truthful information about a public event, including the names of students who disrupted it, especially where attendees were informed in advance that the event would be recorded.

UCLA must make clear that no Fed Soc student member will face discipline for protected speech.

Stop picking favorites, UCLA. Correct this immediately.

FIRE shared a screenshot of an email from Bayrex Marti, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs who — complete with pronouns in his bio — Marti wrote (emphasis added), "Second, I have also seen requests online to identify students in the audience who are visible in video recordings. Given the context in which some of those requests are being made, and the difficulty in fully anticipating how that information could be used in the future, I would strongly encourage you and other organizers not disclose those details. If that information is shared despite the tenor of some online commentary, and an implicated student reports behavior from anyone that falls under prohibited behavior per the Student Code of Conduct, the student organization and/or individual students could be connected to it (the allegation being that the outcome was reasonably predictable when the names were disclosed) and subjected to campus processes. Again, campus has jurisdiction in those situations over both individuals and student organizations. We can find time to meet if you want to discuss further."

We would love for her to do that, and it did get her attention.

Let's go!

Because UCLA doesn't care about the First Amendment.

That's (D)ifferent, of course.

"Second, enough with these double standards. Threatening only one side with punishment for engaging in the same (protected) expression as the other side is viewpoint discrimination. @UCLA_Law compounds its errors in this sordid affair," Perrino wrote.