‘Complicated and Messy’

Student governments are no strangers to controversies around campus free expression. For example, earlier this year, the University of North Texas Student Government Association passed a resolution calling for “any UNT Student Organization that engages in harassment, discrimination, hate crimes, and/or violation of UNT policy through transphobic posts, statements, and actions” to “be immediately suspended to protect the mental, emotional, and physical health of transgender students at UNT.”

In 2020, the Associated Students of Loyola Marymount University, in California, impeached their senator for diversity and inclusion, a Latina woman, because of past tweets supporting former president Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

In 2017, the Associated Student Government at Northwestern University put forward a resolution endorsing free speech and viewpoint diversity, calling on the university to “allow speakers of all viewpoints … allow and protect peaceful protests … [and] oppose the censorship or attempted censorship of faculty and students.”

It is no wonder why, as one article from the Bipartisan Policy Center suggests, student governments are “fast becoming a focal point in the campus free expression crisis.” Despite the countless examples of student governments engaging with expression—both positively and negatively—we lack a proper understanding of how student government leaders themselves perceive and experience campus free expression.

Considering the multitude of responsibilities student governments have at U.S. colleges and universities (e.g., recognizing student organizations, distributing funding, advocating for certain policies and initiatives, etc.), it is critical to understand how these organizations and, more specifically, their leaders view and engage with free expression. Playing such an integral role on campus, student governments can strongly impact the culture, climate and conditions of their respective schools, for better or for worse.

In an attempt to kick-start a discussion around the topic of student governments and campus free expression, I connected with six current and former student body presidents from various colleges and universities across the country: one from a large public university in California, one from a flagship in the South, one from a small public university in Oregon, one from a land-grant on the East Coast and two from medium-size private institutions in California.

Through open-ended surveys and semistructured interviews, I was able to better understand the ways in which these leaders perceive and experience campus free expression. Here are some of my findings.

1. Student government leaders have different definitions of what campus free expression means to them. Just as the larger higher education community does not have a standard definition of campus free expression, student government leaders conceptualize the concept in numerous ways. A majority of respondents described it as an ability to express beliefs, with one writing, “Campus free expression is the ability to express your thoughts and views openly around campus.” Others, however, took it a step further, with one leader describing campus free expression as a “cultural value of being able to express different opinions without fear of public backlash or other forms of punishment for speech.” Further, a respondent who served in a state that banned certain topics in the classroom emphasized the importance of free expression as it pertains to the academic mission of the university, arguing “that students have the right to be who they are and who they feel on campus” and also should be “guaranteed those same rights in the classroom.”
2. Student government leaders have engaged with a wide range of issues related to campus free expression. Free expression manifests itself in many ways, and student government leaders experience this firsthand. From speakers perceived to be offensive and posters hung by white supremacy groups to anti–critical race theory legislation and efforts to adopt the Chicago principles for free expression, every respondent provided a unique example of a time they have dealt with campus free expression.
3. Student government leaders support the idea of campus free expression but disagree on the practicalities. All respondents seemed to view the concept of campus free expression in a positive light. For example, one called it “a good thing that can generate intellectual exchanges,” and another explained that “students who pursue higher education deserve the right to be exposed to multiple worldviews in order to make determinations about the culture and society around them.” But, when it came down to the nitty-gritty, each leader expressed their own philosophy. For instance, while some favored free expression “generally without limits,” most believed in restrictions, especially in cases where expression harms certain students or populations. The general sentiment can be summarized through the following quote: “I believe that free expression is critical on campus but must not be at another person or community’s physical or emotional expense. I think it is difficult to navigate, but a lot of time someone’s identity may be threatened due to ensuring free expression of political views. However, political views are a choice and your identity is not.” Such a view aligns with existing data that show college students regard free speech rights as important but favor policies that restrict racist speech. Sixty-six percent of college students say free speech is either occasionally or frequently in direct conflict with diversity and inclusion.
4. Student government leaders view free expression as both compatible and in contention with diversity, equity and inclusion. While there was acknowledgment that expression has been “weaponized in ways that have affected the ability of all students to feel safe on campus,” a majority of respondents agreed with the point of view, expressed by one student government leader, that “one can’t really exist without the other. In order to have equity and inclusion, there has to be space on campus for people to share their different beliefs and ideas and worldviews.” Moreover, some respondents even alluded to the importance of free expression in advocating for more diverse, equitable and inclusive campuses, with one former president saying that “free expression is a tool to advance the goals of DEI” and another that “without free expression, marginalized students have a much harder time voicing their issues on campus.”
5. Student government leaders understand they have a responsibility as elected officers to represent all students. Multiple respondents acknowledged that, although at times it can be challenging, their job is to represent and support their entire student body, not just one particular point of view. One said, “As an elected representative, you represent all students, even those with different viewpoints, so it’s important to be open-minded.” Another conveyed, “That’s why I was elected, not just a representative of my own views but of those who are in my constituency. It was a little difficult at first, but I just had to reflect on why I was there and how I am not in the organization to share my own views and press those on every single person.”

Practical Recommendations for Student Governments

For student government leaders, it is clear that, as one of my respondents put it, “campus free expression is complicated and messy.” These findings do not and cannot represent the feelings and beliefs of all student government officers; however, they do provide a useful foundation for understanding the ways in which these leaders perceive and experience campus free expression.

Although dealing with campus free expression matters can be challenging and confusing, I argue that student governments have immense potential to productively engage with these topics and issues. Here are some practical recommendations to help student governments reach their fullest potential.

1. Student governments should be educated and trained, and in turn educate and train their future officers, on the complexities of campus free expression. From the history of free speech in American higher education and the principles behind the First Amendment to legal requirements and campus-specific policies, educating and training officers on matters related to free expression should be a top priority for student government leaders as well as student government advisers and other student affairs professionals.
2. Student governments should develop a framework and collective understanding for expression on campus. Clearly, there is no one way of defining or conceptualizing campus free expression, as can be inferred by the diverse array of responses above. Nevertheless, student governments have the power to set the expectation when it comes to speech and expression. Using the knowledge gained by trainings and educational opportunities, student governments should engage the entire campus community to develop guidelines for expression and discourse on campus (e.g., treating all people and voices with respect, listening to learn, considering the impact of words, etc.). Tangibly, this could result in a community compact where students are exposed to these guidelines (not policies) when they enter campus for the first time and sign on (in a non-legally-binding manner) to pledge their commitment to these shared values. This must be done carefully, thoughtfully and in conjunction with a variety of stakeholders.
3. Student governments should publicly commit themselves to the values of free expression and diversity, equity and inclusion. As evident in the examples, responses and data mentioned above, there are concerns about the relationship between free expression and diversity, equity and inclusion. Rather than dismissing these concerns or viewing these as mutually exclusive, student governments should make their commitment to both of these values known. This can be done through statements, policies and, most importantly, actions (e.g., how an organization helps certain students and groups, how officers treat and speak to one another, etc.).
4. Student governments should provide structured spaces to promote free expression, viewpoint diversity and civil discourse. There is no better organization to lead the charge in fostering these ideals than student governments. Rather than taking a laissez-faire approach to expression on campus, student governments can offer students structured spaces to express themselves, learn from others and hear new ideas. For example, a student government could partner with an academic unit to host an open forum on a relevant societal issue or event. The forum could include a presentation with faculty expertise on the topic as well as a session for students to openly discuss the matter at hand. These events will only be fruitful with carefully thought-out guidelines, moderation and participant buy-in; nevertheless, they are incredibly worthwhile avenues for student governments to explore.
5. Student governments should model the behavior they wish to see on their campus. Whether it be in formal Senate meetings or simply when interacting with students and groups, student government leaders should aim to set the bar for campus expression and conduct. This can play out in many different ways, but generally speaking, student governments should debate and discuss in a respectful manner, welcome and include all perspectives, and, as some of the respondents in this project emphasized, keep the interests of all students at the forefront of their efforts. By modeling this behavior firsthand, student governments will not only more successfully fulfill their mission as a representative and deliberative body but also, hopefully, influence the larger student body to follow suit.