School Protest Rules Reworked: New Plan Focuses on Student Safety

The city council is moving forward with a revised bill that tightens police planning around protests near schools, while keeping colleges and hospitals out of the scope. The change came after Council Speaker Julie Menin decided to address concerns instead of pushing a veto‑override, hoping for broader support. The original proposal had sparked worry about free‑speech limits because it could cover a wide range of educational sites. Menin’s version removes those extras and hones in on early‑childhood centers, K‑12 schools, and programs inside shared buildings. The bill was first introduced by Bronx council member Eric Dinowitz. It would require the police to design and post a strategy for handling protests that might block access, cause harm, or intimidate people near schools. The measure passed the council by 30 to 19 votes but fell short of a veto‑proof majority. Governor Eric Adams later blocked it, saying the definition was too broad and could clash with constitutional rights.

When Adams vetoed the bill, he allowed a related law covering places of worship to pass without his signature. He said that version was narrower and only asked the police to document how they handle protests near religious sites. He still opposed framing all demonstrations as security threats. Menin explained that the new draft will keep oversight of police plans and increase transparency about how they respond to demonstrations near schools. It also mandates community input before and after any incidents, ensuring that the council has a clear view of police actions. She stressed that the bill does not restrict peaceful protests; it only applies when there is a real danger of obstruction or intimidation. The amended bill will be introduced soon, with Manhattan/Bronx council member Elsie Encarnacion as the lead sponsor and Dinowitz co‑sponsoring. The Professional Staff Congress, which represents CUNY faculty and staff, praised the decision not to override the veto, calling the original measure too broad and a threat to free expression. They remain opposed to any further limits on New Yorkers’ right to speak out.

Actions