Students are back on campus, and they are returning against a backdrop of political and social uncertainty, highlighted by antagonists in Charlottesville at the University of Virginia, which has prompted many campus leaders to reconsider symbols on their own campuses. And with all signs indicating students are only going to be more engaged in protests and political activity on campus, this is sure to be one aspect of campus life which will continue to keep administrators up at night.
From sexual assault, which is a growing concern in legislatures across the country, to student protests over racial injustice on and off campus, the primary concern of campus leaders must be protecting student safety. Despite some claims that free speech should be protected at all costs, it is incumbent upon campus presidents and student affairs professionals to ensure a safe environment to cultivate learning — and where safety is compromised, expression must yield.
(The Supreme Court has addressed this twice. In 1919’s Schenck v. United States, the court unanimously held that free speech could be prohibited if the remarks presented a “clear and present danger” of “substantive evils.” And again in 1969, when the court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that free speech can be limited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” ironically in the case of a Ku Klux Klan leader convicted for remarks made during a rally in the state.)
A recent survey found with everything a college president is expected to do today, student affairs is no longer seen as a top priority of the job. This is a huge mistake; boards will boot you if you don’t raise enough money, but students will boot you if you ignore their concerns. Just ask Tim Wolfe.
The most prevalent feedback around these uprisings, particularly around sexual assault, is that presidents and other campus leaders can’t be held responsible for, or even expected to know every detail concerning student behavior. And this is absolutely true. However, presidents are responsible for setting the tone for the campus.
This means setting clear expectations and outlining consequences and swiftly condemning any action which runs counter to the desired campus culture. Due process must be protected for all accused individuals, but that process does not have to be so mired in bureaucracy that nothing ever comes of it. And investigations should be as transparent as possible, barring any concerns over rights to personal privacy, to avoid a culture which perpetuates decades of transgressions and campus cover-ups.
The short-term public perception hit an institution might face upon revealing something unflattering about the campus is much more palatable than the long-term brand hit it could face if the facts come out down the road, and if there is evidence to suggest sustained malfeasance (see: Baylor, Penn State).
In some cases, though, the role of the president and other campus leaders is just to simply listen. Today’s students are inclined to take their gripes to social media first, rather than seeking to address them through appropriate on-campus channels. In some cases the complaints are legitimate, and in others they are not, but social media has a way of amplifying individual incidents in ways which could result in tremendous and unnecessary headaches.
With bigger issues, like community unrest, expecting the campus president to always know exactly what to say is a lot of pressure. Sometimes, providing a space for open dialogue which isn't formally "led" by anyone can go a long way in helping to bring the campus community together. Similarly, engaging students, faculty and staff in conversations about decisions on campus — large and small — could make a world of difference. Even if the outcomes are not as some in the campus community would have liked, when people feel they are heard, they can respect difficult decisions.
Inviting an unpopular legislator to speak at fall convocation? Host a town hall meeting and feedback sessions before the invitation is extended to both communicate what the institution hopes to gain from the appearance and understand stakeholder opposition before the person arrives on campus. If students are still set on protesting the individual’s appearance, work with student leaders to define parameters for the protest — a designated area, organized talking points.
Even where leaders and students disagree, in fact especially where there’s disagreement, there’s an opportunity to learn something from the experience. After all, the preeminent mission of the institution is to educate and equip students for life after degree — and that life is often wrought with disagreement.
This column represents the first installment in Education Dive: Higher Ed's "Leading Thoughts" column, which will run on the fourth Friday of every month.