The University of Colorado Board of Regents postponed a decision on Thursday about a policy change after opposition from some faculty and students at the Boulder campus who believe it would wrongfully restrict free speech.

The proposal suggests changes to CU’s policy on freedom of expression. It would add a requirement that staff, faculty and students must indicate when speaking or writing that their opinion does not reflect that of the university.

“I think that this amendment to the rules is a very clear attempt to erode academic freedom and freedom of expression for faculty, staff and students,” CU Boulder Associate Law Professor Maryam Jamshidi said. “I think it’s very much in line with the very troubling national trend over the last year in particular to dismantle academic freedom and freedom of expression at U.S. universities.”

All faculty members in the CU Law School, which is more than 40, unanimously voted to approve a resolution calling on the regents to reject the policy change.

“This proposal would impose breathtakingly broad new restrictions on speech,” the resolution read. “For faculty and staff, the mandatory ‘disclaimer’ is a form of compelled speech that would be imposed on private, citizen speech.”Regent Mark VanDriel suggested the board table the policy vote at the regents’ regular meeting on Thursday at CU Anschutz, citing the desire to have more conversations. The vote was postponed, and there was no further discussion.

The proposal could appear for a vote at the regents’ next regular meeting on Nov. 7 and Nov. 8.

If approved, the changes to Regent Policy 1.D would expand it to apply to digital spaces and require students speaking or writing as citizens to “make every effort to indicate that their expression is their own and does not represent the opinion or position of the university.”

“So every time they speak they have to make this disclaimer?” CU Boulder Professor and Women and Gender Studies department Chair Julie Carr said during the meeting’s public comment. “It seems like an undue burden on the students.”

The policy would also add a requirement that university faculty, staff and students, when writing as citizens on matters of public concern within digital spaces controlled by the campus, specifically include a disclaimer that their work does not represent the opinion, belief or position of the university.

“The proposed changes assume that the university does have a political … and social position on all things,” Carr said. “But it was my understanding that the university is an entity, a neutral entity, that provides a platform for the free expression and debate of ideas.”

Students in the CU Law School also voted unanimously to pass a resolution through the Student Bar Association against the proposed policy changes.

“This proposal seeks to remedy a problem that does not exist, and in doing so places overbroad restrictions on students’ freedoms of speech and expression,” the resolution read. “Further, it directly contradicts preexisting, unchanged language … creating an unenforceable policy that only serves to confuse and frustrate students.”

CU law student Adora Bertero, the president of the Student Bar Association, said 42 student organizations representing 500 students in the Law School voted unanimously to oppose the policy changes.

“I’m glad that they’re waiting to take this vote because I think they ended up getting more public commentary than they expected,” Bertero said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado submitted a letter on Wednesday to the Board of Regents opposing the policy change. The letter said that “vague and overbroad regulations on university students’ and employees’ expression” interfere with academic freedom.

“The proposed amendments raise grave constitutional concerns and will chill members of the CU community from speaking their minds and sharing their views,” the letter read.

CU Boulder Professor and Faculty Council Chair Alastair Norcross also urged the regents not to adopt the changes during public comment on Thursday, saying that many faculty oppose it.

“Most of the comments that I received were similar in that they worried about vagueness, they worried about ambiguity, they worried about the scope of proposed changes,” Norcross said. “Some people also worried about whether we should be including students in this policy at all.”

Bertero said the policy changes would directly contradict existing policy and the school has no business to tell students what they can or cannot say as private citizens.

“Frankly, I expected better,” Bertero said. “It does not match the values of our school as a public institutions to add these add burdens to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.”