By Emma Murphy, Oklahoma Voice
OKLAHOMA CITY — A state board tasked with investigating free speech violations on Oklahoma university campuses must have increased enforcement power to properly protect people’s constitutional rights, one advocate said.
But leaders of the Oklahoma Free Speech Committee said the body doesn’t need more power beyond its advisory role when it comes to enforcing changes in free speech policy or investigating violations.
The debate over the committee’s role comes as the state’s three largest universities have faced complaints of free speech violations in recent months, ranging from political and religious discrimination to press censorship.
The nine-member committee, created by House Bill 3543 in 2022, is part of the State Regents for Higher Education and is a purely advisory body that issues recommendations, guides free speech training and investigates complaints of violations on college and university campuses, according to state statute.
Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, authored the bill that created the Free Speech Committee and currently serves on the board.
He said the committee was intentionally set up to be advisory so it was collaborative, rather than adversarial, with the state’s colleges and universities. He continues to support that structure.
“But if we find that our colleges and universities are routinely kind of ignoring the suggestions of the committee, then maybe we need to go back through and look at that,” Caldwell said. “But I think so far we’ve seen a willingness to collaborate and to work together.”
Patrick Elliott, the legal director for Freedom From Religion Foundation, said an advisory board with “no enforcement authority isn’t enough.” The nonprofit advocates for the division between church and state.
Relying on litigation alone “delays justice” and places a burden on victims of free speech violations, he said in a statement.
“We support additional mechanisms to protect free speech,” Elliot said. “Those could include a government body that can both investigate and require compliance when rights are violated.”
Andy Lester, chair of the Free Speech Committee, said he likes the way the committee was created by statute to be advisory because there “isn’t another committee in the country like ours.”
“It’s a safety valve,” Lester said. “… I think the process works well. If the Legislature wanted to change that and empower this committee to do something else, I’m sure we, of course, would be happy to do that, but that’s up to somebody else.”
There have been three formal complaints since the beginning of the semester that are currently being investigated, Lester said.
Rick Hall, a board member who serves on the committee’s Complaint Task Force, said he could not discuss what they entail, saying they should be kept confidential to “maintain the integrity of the review process.”
Lester said only one other complaint has been submitted to the committee during its existence and it was found to not be a free speech issue. He did not elaborate on the details of the complaint.
“It’s usually probably better for them to try to do it on the campus itself, but they can come to us right away,” he said. “Our process takes some time.”
Oklahoma colleges and universities typically set their own policies to address free speech complaints. The Free Speech Committee plans to eventually review the policies of every campus, but said they are still doing initial reviews.
At the conclusion of an investigation, the committee can offer recommendations to the complaining party as well as the institutions involved and the State Regents.
Laura Beltz, director of policy reform for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group, said having a committee to provide input and expertise across the state is generally helpful.
“That being said, if colleges are able to ignore the input of the committee when a campus violates a student or faculty member’s rights, it’s critical that mechanisms are in place to ensure that student or faculty member’s rights are vindicated, e.g. by referring the matter to an office that does have the authority to take action,” Beltz said.
At least two complaints to the committee, which were obtained independently by Oklahoma Voice, are related to accusations of free speech violations at the University of Central Oklahoma. They were filed by Amy Hall, the daughter of a former adviser to the student newspaper, and Jon Womastek, a UCO alumni.
UCO’s complaints stems from the school’s decision to end the print publication of the student newspaper, The Vista, and allegations that the school was trying to control students’ coverage of the administration. The Vista continues to publish digitally, and the university has denied the claim.
A spokesperson for UCO said the institution “has not received any formal complaints of violations of free speech in 2025.”
The school did receive recommendations for minor changes to its free speech policy after an unrelated review by the Free Speech Committee in 2024. All recommendations were implemented, the spokesperson said.
UCO does not have a “formal position” on the committee’s function as an advisory board, the spokesperson said.
A spokesperson at Oklahoma State University said in a statement that the school has received three formal complaints in 2025.
“While we are aware of instances where someone has indicated that someone else’s expression is hateful or offensive, we are only aware of three formal complaints in which one student organization’s fliers were removed,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
It wasn’t immediately clear if this complaint was also filed with the state Free Speech Committee or if it had been resolved.
The spokesperson said that the school is reviewing a set of recommendations from the Free Speech Committee and is committed to “maintaining” an environment on campus to support free speech.
The spokesperson did not answer questions about the efficacy of the Free Speech Committee.
OSU also faced accusations in October of violating a student’s free speech rights after a staff member reportedly criticized him for wearing a hat with the No. 47, a symbol of President Donald Trump’s presidency, at a student government meeting.
The student, who was giving a speech promoting free speech at the time, said he received the cap from Charlie Kirk after volunteering at a Turning Point USA event held at the Stillwater campus. Kirk, a conservative activist, was assassinated during an event earlier this year in Utah, the same day the student wore the hat.
Spokespeople with OU did not comment by the time of publication about whether they had faced any formal complaints of free speech violations on campus this year or the efficacy of the committee.
OU has been entangled in a free speech-related controversy since late November when a student claimed the zero she received for an essay she wrote was because of her religious beliefs and a violation of her free speech.
The student said she used the Bible as a reference for the essay, which was assigned to be a reaction to an article on gender-based stereotypes, and argued against eliminating societal gender roles. The graduate teaching assistant, who OU has since put on leave, said she had failed to use empirical evidence and that parts of her essay were offensive.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has demanded the graduate teaching assistant be immediately reinstated. The group said OU as a public university cannot “privilege religious viewpoints.”
Lester and Caldwell, who serve on the state’s Free Speech Committee, commended the University of Oklahoma on Tuesday for the way it has dealt with the ongoing controversy at its Norman campus.
“From what I have seen thus far, it looks like the process at the University of Oklahoma is working well,” Lester said. “These issues are difficult to deal with, and my heart does go out to everybody involved, including, frankly, both sides of what happened and the administration. It’s hard to balance these things.”
