Student free speech versus social media rules: A look at U.S. and Indian university policies

Recent news about the Donald Trump administration's move on enhanced screening, including 'social media vetting' of foreign students, has caused a stir. Experts say that the free speech rights of U.S. citizens are protected by the First Amendment to their Constitution. Though the speech of immigrants is protected as well, there is no explicit bar on deportation, a lacuna used by the Trump administration.
The social media vetting debate has left students in India, many of whom aspire to go to the U.S. for higher studies, more conscious about the consequences of their social media activities. Though the scale, consequences, and the level of scrutiny are heightened with the Trump administration's move, social media vetting is not a new issue for Indian students. Typical social media policies of Indian education institutions are restrictive and explicitly bar several aspects.
U.S. universities have for a while had guidelines on social media usage by students and staff. Indian educational institutes, too, have drafted policies to keep in check the social media activities of students. The difference, though, is that at the university level in the U.S., these policies have been intended more towards students' safety from phishing scams, being misconstrued online, and university brand communications. The guidelines recognise the right of students to express their opinions freely. They, however, do encourage students to post a disclaimer that these views are personal and do not represent the university. For instance, Harvard Business School's guidelines specify that it is not the university's role to police or punish the online expression of individual members of the community, unless it violates existing University or School policy.
In India, though, the picture is different. Institutes like Central University of Tamil Nadu (CUTN), Manipal Institute of Higher Education (MAHE), IIT Madras, KIIT, and NIFT are among the many with social media policies. The social media policies for IIT Madras and MAHE were implemented in 2022. At least on paper, these policies are more scrutinising of students if compared to the guidelines of U.S. universities. They also mention punishments for any offences caused.
What policies of Indian educational institutions say
Most policies note that future employers and industry contacts may view social media profiles when hiring to get an idea of a candidate's character, personality, or employability. They ask students to be cautious in order not to affect their chances of employability.
The policies also say that students can't claim to speak on behalf of the institution or use its logo without permission. The policies caution against cyberbullying and privacy violations of others, sharing of inappropriate material, including images, that is, or may be perceived to be threatening, harassing, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, indecent, defamatory, or hostile towards any individual, group, or entity.
The general guidelines of IIT Madras, signed in 2022, say, 'Civil and criminal laws apply to content posted online. Civil claims that could be brought include actions for defamation, harassment, breach of intellectual property rights, fraudulent misrepresentation, or breach of confidence. Criminal offences that could occur online include harassment, stalking, hate crimes, coercive or controlling behaviour, disclosing intimate images without consent, blackmail, malicious communications, and terrorism offences. Cyber laws as are applicable in the Indian Territory will apply to the contents posted online.'
Some common clauses in the policy of MAHE, IIT Madras, and CUTN say putting out confidential information (which may include research not yet in the public domain, information about fellow students or staff, or personal matters, non-public or not yet approved documents or information) is considered unacceptable.
It is also deemed unacceptable to share details of complaints/potential complaints and/or legal proceedings/potential legal proceedings involving the University. Anything which may bring the University into disrepute or compromise the safety or reputation of colleagues, former colleagues, students, staff, and those connected with the University.
About content maligning Indian institutes
NIFT says any content maligning NIFT, its policies, and employees will be viewed adversely, inviting disciplinary action and inter alia, penalties, debarment from sitting the examination, campus placements, etc. IIT Madras says any content inappropriately maligning the institute, its policies, employees, and students should be avoided.
KIIT says, no one can use social media ports/ platforms for raising and escalating concerns relating to the university, the courses, admissions, examinations, research, including the centres of study/ research, constituent schools/ colleges, councils/ committees/ management bodies of the university and/or any personnel of the university.
A former student from a chain of colleges in Bangalore recalls an incident from ten years ago. He says, 'There was a bus strike in Bangalore due to political problems. All colleges and schools declared a holiday because of the bus strike. Our college, however, continued classes. Though most students were from the hostel, one student had to commute from a faraway locality. She used to voice of a youth-based platform to raise her concerns. She was suspended.'
The student is not aware whether this happened due to any policy in place or if it was arbitrary. 'I am sure most of us didn't even know if there was a policy. If there were, we wouldn't have known. A professor who questioned this was apparently shown the door. Students tried to protest against this, but due to a lack of clarity among students and fear of professors, it didn't go beyond a 20-minute gathering', he said.
Punishment
CUTN has listed that disciplinary action will be taken for violations of the social media policy. Minor punishment includes oral reprimand, written reprimand, and written warning. These are to caution the student about the misconduct. Major penalties include restrictions or suspension of privileges such as hostel access, use of lab, library, cafeteria, sports facilities, membership in clubs, placement activities, and internships or academic associations. A fine of a minimum of ₹5,000 may be levied along with compensation for damage, and for multiple violations, the panel may recommend more severe actions.
Major penalties also include disciplinary probation, which is a written notification that further violations may lead to suspension. Suspension involves withdrawal from courses, forfeiture of fees, and prohibition from visiting university premises without written approval. It may also involve a course or semester drop, or rustication for a specified period. Expulsion results in forfeiture of all rights and degrees not yet conferred, loss of the right to study, and fees. Students can only visit the university premises with written permission from the Disciplinary Committee.
The universities appoint an appellate authority for students who feel aggrieved by the punishment. Students from CUTN and MAHE can appeal to the vice-chancellor, whereas IIT Madras has appointed the Director of the institute for the purpose.
What guidelines of some U.S. universities say
Guidelines of U.S. universities usually make students and staff aware that, though these platforms offer a private mode, privacy doesn't really exist on social media. The Social Media Policy and Guidelines of the University of Michigan apply to all social media platforms approved by the university for brand communications and any emerging platforms. While they mention that these guidelines are not intended to govern the personal social media accounts of faculty, staff, or students, a section does dwell upon personal social media usage.
The University of Michigan encourages students not to reveal confidential information about the university or its members. They also ask not to misuse the U-M brand, not to use the University of Michigan identity, such as the name, logo, and brand colors, for any personal purposes. It further states, 'If you identify yourself on your social media channels as a University of Michigan faculty or staff member, it is necessary to make sure that you post a disclaimer that your views are your own and you are not representing the university in your posts'.
The Harvard Business School has guidelines for social media staff and faculty. Their disclaimer says, 'We encourage you to review the following guidance—as a form of best practice; for your safety and well-being; to be aware of (and to avoid where appropriate) the potential for confusion between personal and professional viewpoints and to protect Harvard Business School and its reputation and brand.'
While the university encourages students and staff to reach out to university authorities If they see something concerning on social media related to the HBS community, but also notes that it is not HBS's role to police or punish the online expression of individual members of the community, unless it violates existing University or School policy.
Harvard University's website displays some social media guidance notes. They say, 'Your viewpoints are your own; you should be clear, if necessary, that you are speaking in an individual capacity and not on behalf of Harvard Business School or Harvard University. This is especially true if your relationship with HBS or Harvard is generally known and/or your role at HBS positions you to frame or state positions on behalf of the School'.
Apart from that the university lists personal safety guidelines: Avoid posting personal identifying information about yourself and others, including: Real-time location information, Phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, or other identifying information for you and your family/loved ones; Information that is often used to provide password hints or reset information
The free speech debate
Asif Ali Zaidi, Advocate and Researcher, said, 'In the United States, the speech of the citizens is protected by the First Amendment. It protects their speech in absolute terms. However, the same is not extended to the immigrants, and the recent deportations of the pro-Palestinian students and activists are an example of how the law is not equal for all. Though the US Supreme Court protects the speech of immigrants, it does not say anything about deportations, and therefore, the Trump administration has used this lacuna.
Mr. Zaidi said, 'In India, the right to free speech is extended to Citizens under Article 19 1 (a) of the Constitution. However, the same may be curtailed on the broad grounds mentioned under 19 (2), such as sovereignty, integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States, morality, decency, etc. The free speech can also be curtailed under the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 152), which provides for sedition without mentioning it.'
Shyam Gopal, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, said, Free speech rights aren't inherently more sacrosanct for students than for others. In the US, the First Amendment protects most speech and precedents like Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) affirm students' rights to free speech unless it substantially disrupts the learning environment. In India, free speech rights, including for students, are governed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression but allows 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) for reasons like public order, decency, morality, security of the state, or incitement to violence. Campus regulations often restrict protests or speeches that could disrupt academic functioning or offend public sentiments. Courts have upheld such restrictions, prioritizing public order, for example, see Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2016).
Legal consequences
While some academicians say students need to be educated about the consequences of their actions on social media and are not mature enough, others, however, say institutional control can hamper the right to free speech. Parag Kalkar, Pro Vice-Chancellor, SPPU, says, 'As a university professor, I find that while students are digitally native, their understanding of the full professional consequences of their online posts is often incomplete. They frequently struggle to connect their casual online personas with their emerging professional identities, underestimating how easily seemingly innocuous content can be misinterpreted, decontextualised, or permanently accessed by future employers and institutions'.
Mr. Kalkar says, 'This disconnect stems from a lack of critical reflection on impulsive posts, a reliance on the false security of privacy settings, and an evolving grasp of what constitutes professional conduct in a digital age where online behavior is an extension of one's professional brand. Therefore, we must consistently educate them on the internet's permanence, audience awareness, and the lasting impact their digital footprint has on their career trajectory'.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner KS Legal & Associates, says 'Institutional social media policies, such as those enforced by MAHE, IIT Madras, CUTN, and NIFT, often clash with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, creating a fraught balance where institutional control can suppress legitimate expression through overly broad or vague restrictions'.
Ms. Chandwani, says, 'These policies, which prohibit content that maligns the institution, discloses confidential information, or causes disrepute, draw legitimacy from Article 19(2)'s exceptions for defamation, public order, or privacy but risk overreach by using ambiguous terms like 'disrepute,' which invite arbitrary enforcement and chill dissent. Students breaching these policies face civil liabilities, such as defamation claims under IPC Section 499 or tortious actions for breach of confidence, potentially leading to damages or injunctions, while criminal liabilities under IPC Sections 354A (harassment), 354C (voyeurism), 507 (criminal intimidation), or IT Act Section 66E (disclosing private images) carry penalties including fines and imprisonment'.
'Students can challenge such restrictions or disciplinary actions through writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash overbroad policies or actions, or pursue internal grievance mechanisms and civil remedies under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to protect their right to critique institutional practices without facing disproportionate retribution', said Ms. Chandwani.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

34 minutes ago

• Time of India

2 F-5 jets downed, key military sites hit: Israel gives 24-hour recap; shares video of strikes on Iran

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Sunday said it had destroyed two Iranian fighter jets and eight ballistic missile launchers in a sweeping overnight operation that targeted dozens of military installations across Iran. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The strikes, carried out by 20 Israeli fighter jets, reportedly hit key sites including Dezful and Isfahan airports. According to the IDF, the Israeli Air Force bombed two Iranian F-5 fighter jets at Dezful Airport, while missile launchers prepared for imminent strikes on Israel were also neutralised. 'This morning, the IAF struck missile launchers ready to launch toward Israeli territory, soldiers in the Iranian Armed Forces, and swiftly neutralised the launchers that launched missiles toward Israel,' the IDF said in a statement. Additional targets included explosive production sites, weapons storage and air defence systems. Military infrastructure at Isfahan Airport was also hit to prevent the Iranian Air Force from using the facility. The escalation came just hours after the United States entered the fray, striking three nuclear sites in Iran — Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz — in a coordinated effort with Israel. President Donald Trump declared that Iran's nuclear programme had been 'completely and fully obliterated,' although no independent damage assessment has yet been released. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation confirmed the attacks but said its programme would continue. The UN nuclear watchdog reported no signs of radioactive leakage but confirmed it would continue monitoring. Following the US strikes, Iran launched a retaliatory barrage of 40 missiles targeting Israeli cities, including Haifa and Tel Aviv. Over 80 people were reportedly injured. Israel said it had 'swiftly neutralised' the launchers responsible and began a new wave of strikes on western Iran. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Trump described the joint offensive as a historic moment. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran… All planes are safely on their way home,' he posted online. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the US President's bold move, calling it a decision that 'will change history.' Meanwhile, Iran's foreign ministry condemned the attacks, warning that the US had 'launched a dangerous war' and reserved the right to respond 'with full force.' The situation has sparked growing international concern, with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling the strikes a 'dangerous escalation' and warning of 'catastrophic consequences.'

Time of India

34 minutes ago

• Time of India

What are the nuclear contamination risks from attacks on Iran?

President Trump announced U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow, joining earlier Israeli attacks. Experts suggest limited contamination risks from strikes on uranium enrichment facilities, mainly chemical rather than radiological. Gulf states are especially concerned about potential contamination of desalinated water sources if the Bushehr reactor is hit, prompting high alert and emergency plans. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHICH IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES HAVE BEEN HIT SO FAR? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHAT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS? WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED? President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites had been "obliterated" in military strikes overnight, including on the deeply buried Fordow facility, as the U.S. joined attacks launched by Israel on June have said military strikes on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities pose limited risks of contamination, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Sunday no increased off-site radiation levels had been reported following the U.S. U.S. military struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump said Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated". The attacks follow previously announced Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran says it aims to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb and the U.S. says Tehran would not be allowed to get such weapons. Iran denies ever seeking nuclear international nuclear watchdog IAEA has previously reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the nuclear complex at Isfahan that includes the Uranium Conversion Facility and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab. The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy IAEA said it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom to Reuters before the U.S. strikes took place, experts said Israel's attacks had posed limited contamination risks so Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think-tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern."When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely. The risk of harmful chemicals being dispersed is lower for underground facilities."Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in Britain, said risks to the environment were minimal when subterranean facilities are hit because you are "burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock".James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive," he on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences", he said, while stating his opposition to Israel's major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Gulf of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on June 19 when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr, only to say later that the announcement was a says it wants to avoid any nuclear Wakeford, honorary professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story".Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe".For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is on high alert to monitor for any possible environmental contamination after the attacks, said a source with knowledge of the matter. There have been no signs of radiological contamination so far, the source said, adding that the GCC had emergency plans in place in case of a threat to water and food security in the the United Arab Emirates, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, authorities is also 100% dependent on desalinated Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for some Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline."If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center."Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.

India.com

37 minutes ago

• India.com

Global Leaders React After US Strikes Irans Nuclear Sites

The United States bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities early Sunday which broke out global silence and triggered urgent global leaders to react on the matter of US intervention in the Middle East war. Earlier, US President Donald Trump claimed the attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Trump stated, "There is not another military in the World that could have done this", adding, "Now is the time for peace." World Leaders Reactions Iran Iran strongly condemned the US airstrikes, with Foreign Minister Abbad Araghchi sharing a post on X and saying, "The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior." United Nations UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed grave alarm over the use of force by the United States, warning that further escalation could lead to disastrous consequences. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' Guterres said in a statement posted on X. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia shared a statement in a post on 'X' and wrote, 'The Kingdom of Saudia Arabia is following with great concern the developments in the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran, represented by the targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States of America.' United Kingdom Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Keir Starmer shared a post on X and urged Iran to come back to the negotiating table. 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' he said. Israel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised US President Donald Trump for what he described as a 'bold and historic' military operation targeting Iran's three nuclear sites including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. "Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said.