In the wake of student demonstrations last semester, officials at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have updated their policies regarding expressive speech on campus and public statements as an institution. While the university champions the free discussion of ideas in our campus community, the reality of these policies tells a different story — one that stands against the Wisconsin Idea.
In August, the university released the updated policy, now called the Expressive Activity Policy, to clarify restrictions of protesting on campus while also reiterating current policies. This includes restricting expressive activity — which can include protests, speeches and chants — within 25 feet of all university building entrances, limitations on size for indoor signs, restrictions on certain sound amplifications and restricting activities in certain areas on campus, like the Abraham Lincoln Statue, during certain hours of the day. The policy also outlines how UWPD is able to extend the 25-foot distance further if safety is at risk.
In concept, the new student demonstration guidelines are designed to safeguard students’ right to safely protest. In practice, the Expressive Activity Policy has the possibility to not only restrict student expression, but stand in direct opposition to the university’s mission of fostering the Wisconsin Idea “that education should influence people’s lives beyond the boundaries of the classroom.”
The university’s new Expressive Activity Policy forces students to reconsider the consequences of fighting for change, potentially creating a chilling effect out of fear student protesters could violate unclear rules. As student demonstrators reconsider their involvement in expressive political action, the administration has placed an important asterisk on the Wisconsin Idea — education should influence people’s lives beyond the classroom, but only on their terms.
“The robust exchange of ideas and viewpoints is central to a university,” said Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin in a UW-Madison statement following the policy release. “That means that we will often engage with ideas and perspectives that may be new to us, and that might, in some cases, cause us unease or discomfort.”
At face value, this makes sense. But, the question still remains: what’s the difference between a “robust exchange of ideas” and student demonstrations now deemed to be unacceptable? Moreover, is meaningful change always possible when activism is limited to a roundtable discussion tucked away in a university building?
Following the updates to the Expressive Activity Policy, the university released the Institutional and Public Positions Statements policy, outlining when and how university officials will consider and institute public statements. The new policy determines university response on whether or not the topic directly impacts the “core mission or operations of the university or one or more of its units.”
Once again, the guidelines of this new policy are ambiguous. By leaving statements up to the discretion of the university, it also sets up zero expectation for the university to address current events that deeply affect the wellbeing of the student body. What could be considered an impact to a “core mission or operation of the university?”
“When the institution takes a point of view on a matter of public concern or controversy, however well intended, it risks crowding out other points of view… it risks harm to one of the most core and fundamental dimensions of a university: free and open debate,” Mnookin wrote in an email to students and staff.
UW-Madison withdrawing itself from making statements is not the best way to encourage free and open discussions on campus.
Students and community members alike should have the opportunity to critique and challenge statements made by the university, because those challenges have the possibility to spark meaningful changes on the institutional level.
When it comes to addressing current events, the role of the university isn’t to serve as the final arbiter of right and wrong for the student body, but that doesn’t mean the institution should always pursue neutrality, especially when determined by a standard that’s unclear to the student body. Ideally, the university should be one of many voices in the “robust exchange of ideas” taking place on campus.
The bottom line is, when the university takes a stance, they take a risk — but if meaningful campus discourse in pursuit of the Wisconsin Idea is the priority, it’s one worth taking.
