The Legislature Must Protect Free Speech on UW Campuses
We need to foster an environment where open dialogue is encouraged, and differing opinions are respected on campus
On Thursday, November 13, UW-Madison students Courtney Graves and Hanna Anderson Gravelle testified in front of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities to support Assembly Bill 501, which would bolster free speech and academic freedom on UW campuses. This is Anderson Gravelle’s unedited testimony:
Thank you Chairman Murphy and members of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities, for hearing Assembly Bill 501 regarding free speech on college campuses. My name is Hanna Anderson Gravelle. I am a second-year student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) studying Political Science, Legal Studies, and Public Policy.
Suppressed speech on college campuses has been an ongoing issue. College campuses have become exceedingly divided, causing an uninviting environment for differing opinions. We, as students, policymakers, and administrators, need to create meaningful change on campus. It is essential all students feel comfortable, safe, and valued on their own campus. We need to foster an environment where open dialogue is encouraged, and differing opinions are respected. By uniting, we can foster this environment, as collaboration allows for more meaningful and lasting change. The growing polarization, now visible even to those beyond campus life, reveals a deeper systemic problem within the state and country. Polarization suppresses free expression, as individuals may hesitate to voice their true beliefs, especially if they differ from the social norms established on campus. Universities are supposed to be places that allow open dialogue and civil discourse, not places suppressing free speech. However, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found “Wisconsin places in the bottom 25 nationally for ‘Comfort Expressing Ideas’”. Political climates on campuses should not deter students from furthering their education. An individual’s political beliefs should not define who a person is on campus.
The university’s values statement states, “civil discourse is a longstanding priority of our campus” and “here at UW–Madison, we believe that the ability to exchange, consider, and challenge different ideas is central to the educational process.” UW-Madison has failed to meet the standards they have set forth. Campus has not been a place that allows different ideas to be expressed. In addition, Chancellor Mnookin recently gave a speech at the Reagan Institute Summit saying “It is a call to all of us to double down on the importance of what we are doing on our campuses — to encourage our students and our faculty to learn to disagree better, to learn to engage with one another.” If this statement was highlighted in the speech, it should be reflected through meaningful implementation, not just performative measures. Legislation protecting all students’ freedom of speech and expression is critically important.
The UW employs a distinct but questionable approach to faculty hiring, raising concerns. The faculty hiring process plays a significant role in the increasingly polarized environment the campus has developed. Currently, the hiring process essentially allows other faculty to hire new employees rather than the upper administrators. A hiring process as such does not typically occur in most professions. Systems like this or similar to this do not allow for a fair hiring process, inhibiting hiring varying perspectives. The systemic structure of higher education reinforces the idea this behavior is acceptable to students. Alternatively, the UW recently came out with a neutrality clause due to the prior issues with the university expressing its opinion on political issues. In 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found “66% of faculty say colleges and universities should not take positions on political and social issues.” Public institutions should refrain from taking explicit stances on political issues, as students are highly impressionable and should be encouraged to form their own independent viewpoints. I had a professor who prioritized a politically neutral classroom. I learned the most in this class. I did not know where my professor stood politically, which is how it should be. Universities should be modeling neutrality and open dialogue, reinforcing the importance of respectful discourse rather than endorsing a particular ideology.
The university’s response to the polarization on campus has included implementing civil discourse initiatives. The initiative programs include: Deliberation Dinners, Wisconsin Exchange, The Discussion Project, and a Pluralism and Unity Advisory Board, which I am on. During our meetings, students and faculty discuss controversial issues on campus. I believe promoting pluralism is a significant stride in the right direction. Until UW can create an environment where everyone’s voice is equally accepted and heard, the initiative programs discussed above will not be successful. Disallowing students from expressing their views limits students, our future leaders, from engaging in meaningful and respectful dialogue across differing perspectives.
Daily, I often feel unable to express my views in class because my perspectives differ from my peers. When I do share my opinions, I am frequently met with disapproving looks or immediate debate. At times, I choose to remain silent to avoid constant confrontation. Several conservative classmates have expressed similar experiences. We often feel alienated or viewed as outsiders, which creates an uncomfortable and discouraging classroom environment. Last semester, I received a lower grade due to my final paper incorporating ideas leaning conservative. I emailed my professor and teaching assistant to ask why my grade was lower than normal. I compared my essay to the rubric, quoting how I directly incorporated the requirements into my final. My professor’s response included giving me partial points back, but not enough to substantially change my grade. Many students who have encountered similar situations felt they needed to censor their assignments and adhere to what the professor wanted to hear. Professors create syllabi intend to weed out students who do not agree with them. After this instance, I felt more empowered to stand up, but in most cases, students tend to have an adverse reaction resulting in students’ voices being silenced. Right here is a prime example proving how universities have been infringing on students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
I had a classmate who experienced political hostility after displaying a campaign sign on her dorm room door. She put a political sign on her door, similar to what other students were participating in. Except in her case, her sign was torn down multiple times. Following the incident, she reported the issue, but UW took no further action to address the situation. UW should support students in situations like this. The social effects hostility caused were detrimental. Students on the same dorm floor refused to speak to her, which made her feel isolated. Tearing down her sign and taunting her is the start of political violence. Validating the statistic stating “35% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.”
Reports indicate an upward trend in students perceiving physical violence as an acceptable response to disagreement. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that “76% of students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases,” These numbers used to be lower, but due to the political climate our campus has developed, they have been on the rise. It is imperative to educate the younger generation on the idea, violence is never the answer, and behaviors representing violence are not acceptable.
If we fixed the issue of suppressed speech on campus with expanded free speech policies and due process procedures, 70% of conservative students would not be afraid to express their perspective on a controversial issue for fear of being downgraded for their views. A change in culture will be a long and challenging process but I believe AB 501 is a great step toward sparking meaningful change. Thank you again, Chair and Members of the Committee, for inviting me to testify on AB 501. I am open to answer any question you may have.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of its author.