Student-centric advice on promoting speech on campus:

by Alec Greven

Below are several toolkit principles for promoting open inquiry on college campuses based on extensive research and personal experience I have engaged in to improve the culture of open inquiry on my own campus the University of Richmond. These principles are offered as general guiding principles to help activists more effectively promote open inquiry and free expression.

Principle 1: Assess the campus environment

Every college campus is a unique environment and so will have its own unique challenges. One campus may have a sympathetic administration and a hostile student body to open inquiry. Another campus may have no formal rules that are a threat to open inquiry but individuals may fear speaking out because of a censorious campus culture. In other places there may be explicit regulations that compromise open inquiry. Take some time to look at your campus to see how it promotes or undermines open inquiry from a variety of angles. This likely will involve you talking to several students, faculty, and administrators to get their perspectives. Some questions you may want to ask are:

v How does the student body feel about open inquiry?

v Does the student government differ from the student body’s perspective?

v What do the faculty think about open inquiry?

v Does the faculty senate differ from the overall faculty’s perspective?

v How do administrators address issues relating to open inquiry?

v Are there regulations on campus hostile to the pursuit of open inquiry?

v Are there examples of students, faculty, or staff getting in trouble for speech?

v How willing are campus members to share their opinions?

v Is the campus climate censorious?

Once you have looked into these questions you will have a better idea of what approach will work best. I would recommend a triage approach where you identify the most threatening things to open inquiry and start there. Your assessment of other campus stakeholders can also suggest where you may find sources of support. For example, if administrators on your campus are enforcing policies that harm open inquiry and students are supportive of open inquiry then you could partner with student groups to place pressure on the administration. Each individual campus will have its own answers to the questions above but asking and answering these questions will point to the right starting points.

Principle 2: Start from the ground up

I have never seen a system of open inquiry be successfully implemented just from the top down in a community. Open inquiry at its core is a spontaneous process that involves people searching for truth through the clash of ideas. Spontaneous processes are not readily directed by administrative fiats and instead require dedicated individuals to bring them about. Therefore, if you want to pursue open inquiry I would recommend that you search out for other dedicated students, faculty, and administrators who care about open inquiry and the search for ideas. A foundational team is important because they can be allies who offer information, time, and recommendations that help steer you in the right direction. You should talk with these allies about the questions above and your personal responses to them. Make sure that individuals agree with your assessments and revise them accordingly if necessary. A small and dedicated team from the outset will always be more effective than a large group of somewhat interested people at the start of the process. Your team can provide a nexus that can expand outward over time. But if your core team is not strong then the overall campus network that you want to create will be less strong.

Principle 3: Start early and prepare for the long haul

I have found university campuses to be incredibly bureaucratic. Many decisions are made in committees and there are usually complex hierarchy chains for making decisions. Universities also generally move very slowly when making decisions, especially when there are not explicit pressures on them to move quickly. There are also various campus stakeholders with their own processes for handling issues and normally you have to gain the support of various campus stakeholders. Working with student groups, faculty members, and administrators can take time. Navigating a campus’ decision making environment can require a lot of patience and time investment. With this in mind, you should be reaching out to campus stakeholders as soon as possible under the assumption that they may not move as quickly as you would like. Another reason why it is important to start early is because most students plan on graduating in four years. This means that students will have a more limited time to be advocates on campus and you want to have as much time as possible to take advantage of their advocacy efforts.

Principle 4: Focus more on principles than politics

There have been lots of political discussions about the state of discourse on college campuses, especially relating to free speech. Sadly, open inquiry appears to have gotten sucked into the vortex of the culture war. While arguing for open inquiry on my campus, I have been labeled as a conservative promoting a conservative position. I have also been criticized by conservatives for defending free speech that they dislike. I have tried to emphasize that open inquiry is a nonpartisan position that many diverse political parties and ideologies can get behind. I would recommend that you lead with a focus on the principle behind why open inquiry is valuable and important rather than taking a particular political side. This approach will require you defending ideas, positions, and speech that you will strongly disagree with. That is necessary because if open inquiry is truly nonpartisan then it will protect individuals from across the political spectrum. It is also important that you try your best to not let others pigeonhole you into a political side. If you just represent one political side, or if you are seen as doing so, then you will not be faithfully representing the principle of open inquiry. There are a couple of ways you can demonstrate your commitment to principles over politics. First, you can explicitly say this and outline to others why you think the principle of open inquiry rises above politics. Second, you can reinforce this claim by actually defending speech, even if it is controversial, on all sides of the political spectrum. Finally, you can reach out to various political clubs and student organizations that regularly disagree with each other and ask for their unified support for open inquiry. I did this when I asked the presidents of my school’s College Democrats and College Republicans to sign a joint op-ed defending the right of free expression as being central to the heart of both political clubs, even as they disagree strongly on many different political matters. Getting beyond politics and focusing on the nonpartisan principles behind open inquiry will help to expand your persuasive reach and offer more opportunities for diverse groups of people to come together.

Principle 5: Refine what you are asking for

Open inquiry ultimately rests in the culture of a community. Cultures are very hard to change and they usually change gradually. This means that you should focus on specifics on how you want to make your impact on the campus community. Universities are also bureaucratic organizations and bureaucracies move most effectively when they can follow a concrete and detailed guide. Your job is to provide them that guide with as many specifics as possible. For instance, if you want to host a speaker to talk about open inquiry then you should think about what kind of speaker you want to invite, where you want to advertise, who you need to get permission from, and which groups you want to network with to help host the event. If you want to protect the due process rights of free speech for students on campus you should think about what you specifically want changed. Do you want to revise an existing policy? Do you want to develop a free expression policy? Do you want to reform how conduct policies are enforced? Or do you want the campus to affirm a free expression statement that guides free expression policies and administrative action? The details of what you are proposing should be focused on addressing the most important campus issues with open inquiry that you previously assessed and triaged. Writing out the steps in which you want to things to be accomplished will also help to direct your actions and help you to evaluate the progress you are making. Here is an example of the detailed list I followed to promote open inquiry on my campus.

1. Research free expression policies and their impacts on campus.

2. Pass a resolution with the student government calling for a guiding free expression statement that outlines student rights and responsibilities regarding free expression.

3. Pass a resolution with the faculty senate calling for a similar statement.

4. Collaborate with campus leadership to host speakers to talk about the campus climate and the importance of open inquiry.

5. Publish articles and interview with the campus newspaper to call attention to these issues.

6. Coordinate with a Free Expression Task Force to develop a free expression statement.

7. Get the draft free expression statement that supports open inquiry passed by the Board of Trustees.

This list ended up being changed over time based on campus developments. I modified my writing and work to address the specific organization or entity on campus that I was working with. It is important that you think through the details in advance. I created confusion because I asked the faculty senate to pass a policy and also affirm a guiding statement on free expression. The faculty senate saw a distinction I did not between free expression policy and a guiding statement and they do not usually create free expression policy. In retrospect, I should have asked them to affirm the need for a guiding free expression statement. If I had more clearly developed what I was asking for based on the organization I was working with then I would had a smoother and more efficient experience working with the faculty senate. If you are making progress towards a free expression statement then you should have a model to serve as an example of the kind of statement that you would like affirmed. There are many great free expression statements out there and you should focus on the statement that best fits your campus environment. Some statements, like the Chicago Statement of Principles, are excellent and popular statements but are also controversial. As part of refining what you are asking for, you should find the best model that can represent your unique campus environment and its interests.

Principle 6: Build student support early on

It is critically important that you reach out to student partners and student campus leaders to build support. Most discussions of open inquiry on campus will usually involve students and students are a, if not the, major stakeholder on campus. There will likely be student organizations like political clubs, civil discourse organizations, or student government which will be particularly well suited to address open inquiry issues on campus. You should let them know what you are working on and search for ways to partner with them. It will also be very useful to engage in a lot of listening with these organizations so that you can more easily see where you can work well together. In the spirit of open inquiry, you should reach out to a diversity of students and student organizations to get a more representative opinion of the student body.

Principle 7: Reach out to key administrators

Administrators play a central role in campus issues relating to free expression. The administrators are the ones who interpret and apply campus policies. Many administrators also have a lot of experience dealing with campus speech issues. They may also have access to resources and spaces where you could host speakers or more effectively advocate on campus. If you can, try to get in contact with the highest ranking administrators at your school and explain to them the steps of your open inquiry project and what you need their help with. Many administrators will be very busy but working collaboratively with student networks and organizations can help you more easily get your foot in the door. Administrators are helpful in that they can open up more doors for you. When I was promoting open inquiry, I worked closely with several administrators. I built a personal relationship with my university president, Ronald Crutcher, and he was an invaluable source of support for bringing speakers to campus and speaking out publicly on the value of open inquiry. I would highly recommend working with an administrator to form a committee or task force with students, staff, and faculty to address free expression issues. These kinds of committees can dive deeply into free expression complexities and make compelling recommendations that can have a strong influence on individuals and governing bodies on campus that can make changes to advance open inquiry. University presidents and the board of trustees wield some of the most power on college campuses. Finding a way to get them to weigh in on open inquiry issues could offer a massive boost to your advocacy efforts.

Principle 8: Deep canvas where possible

As you are advocating for open inquiry you are likely to encounter a fair amount of opposition and skepticism along the way. A campus committed to open inquiry is one that is committed to tolerance and inclusion. Supporting open inquiry also means defending ideas that you strongly disagree with and the ability to search for truth even when that inquiry is painful. As Ruth Simmons Brown once said, “learning at its best is the antithesis of comfort. The process of discovery need not make us feel good and secure.” You should recognize that there are many members of the campus community who are wary of the pain that learning through open inquiry will inevitably cause. I recommend that you take the time to listen to the experiences of others and empathize with them as best that you can. Dismissing someone as a “snowflake” who is excessively coddled will never work to change their mind or come around to your position. Broad and abstract pronouncements directed at those you disagree with will also not go far in changing their minds either. It can be quite difficult to convince those of different positions than you to take your side. The most effective way to change someone’s mind that is supported by science is to deep canvas with them. Three scientific studies found that having drawn out non-judgmental conversations with others where personal experiences were shared resulted in reducing exclusionary and discriminatory attitudes. Deep canvassing is all about using personal narratives and experiences to give the person you are engaging in conversation with time to reflect on their opinions. You are not forcing your argument to overpower theirs but rather you are opening up a position where they can change their mind themselves. This video has an excellent description of deep canvassing and shows its effectiveness at work. The power of deep canvassing is something that you should take advantage of at every opportunity. Deep canvassing is a labor intensive process. A good conversation that allows for consideration and reflection and the sharing of personal experiences should take at least 20 minutes. However, they are usually worth it because they provide the best chance to change someone’s mind and also will give you insights into positions that challenge yours. Highlighting and utilizing deep canvassing will make your campus a better place for open inquiry and also will likely help you strategically talk to people who are concerned or skeptical about your efforts.

Principle 9: Draw attention to the benefits of open inquiry and the harms of speech regulation

Narratives matter when making the case for open inquiry. When someone broadly defends a principle of free speech many opponents will highlight specific kinds of unwelcome speech that would be allowed under a policy that promotes free speech. I have noticed that a lot of campus controversy surrounds the issue of hate speech and offensive speech and whether or not these kinds of speech should be permitted. Many students support broad limits on hateful or offensive speech with 78% believing that colleges should be permitted to restrict racial slurs and 71% of students endorsing the ability for colleges to prohibit stereotypical or offensive costumes or dress. These facts about general student perceptions means it will be more difficult to persuade students that certain kinds of offensive or hateful speech should be protected even when people find them to be repugnant or distasteful. Shifting the narrative that is under discussion can be a helpful tool to further campus dialogue. First, you should highlight the benefits of open inquiry more explicitly. This is important because open inquiry is a kind of public good where the benefits of an open campus environment flow to everyone in smaller amounts in many ways that people do not regularly reflect on. If someone feels comfortable saying something they do not always think directly about the value of open inquiry because it is an internalized part of their environment. However, the costs of hateful or offensive speech can be observed more directly between indviduals. Without discrediting the pain people experience from offensive or hateful speech, you should draw attention to the general benefits of open inquiry rather than simply discussing whether person Y should be allowed to say thing X or not.

Another way to change the narrative of your discussion beyond emphasizing the benefits of open inquiry is to also highlight enforcement harms from punishing offensive or hateful speech. The question of regulation comes back to the question of who decides. As Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of PEN America explains “It’s risky to assume that institutional authorities can be empowered to suppress the expression of odious views on issues such as race and gender, without that license someday being used to stamp out the views of those advocating social justice, challenging officialdom or demanding reform.” So, even if you strongly dislike what someone says you should not commit to a censorship regime that could also end up silencing views that people should be allowed to express. One of the harms you may want to draw attention to is particularly the experience of minority students who are subjected to unfair forms of censorship. For example, the University of Michigan enacted a hate speech code for students but 20 Black students were charged for offensive speech under the policy. One Black student was even charged for calling another student “white trash” and punished for it. Broad trends also support the claim that vague censorship standards are dangerous for minority students. The legal scholar Maleiha Malik surveyed hate speech legislation and determined that speech regulations are “used more frequently to criminalize the speech of minorities rather than protect them from hate speech” (Malik 105). These are all crucial facts to keep in mind when people talk about the need to prohibit offensive or hateful speech because of the harm they can cause to marginalized students. Having the ability to censor speech broadly can end up being used against marginalized populations and also diminish open inquiry on campus. Debates about censorship should never lose sight of the benefits of open inquiry and the dangers of enforcement and you should be sure to remind people on campus of these concerns.

Principle 10: Make open inquiry policies and practices hard to undo

These principles have tried to emphasize that promoting open inquiry is a difficult thing to do. Promoting open inquiry well usually requires a large time investment along with many conversations with different stakeholders around campus. A culture of open inquiry cannot simply be quickly fixed through directed policies and instead requires a more gradual change in campus perception. This all leads up to the final principle that I will mention is that you should make open inquiry policies and practices hard to undo. It is concerning if your efforts can quickly and easily be undone. Therefore, you should focus on making sure that your efforts have short and long-term payoffs for your campus. Certain bodies on campus, like the board of trustees, have a lot of power. It can take a lot of effort to get something passed by the board of trustees. However, if it takes a lot of time to get something passed then it can be an indication that it will take a lot of time to overturn what you have done. Therefore, find relatively stable and prominent sources of support for your open inquiry efforts to give them a long-term sense of legitimacy. It will take more time and effort to pursue this kind of strategy but it is ultimately worth it. Making your work more lasting and difficult to undo will also buy the campus time to sound the alarm to threats to open inquiry so that the campus can respond accordingly. I hope that these principles are helpful as you pursue diverse ways to make college campuses more open to inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge. Of course, these principles can only be general because you will face your own challenges and pressures on your specific college campus. These toolkit principles can at least serve as a starting point for a call to conversation.