Over the course of the academic year, the Washington University community has grappled with intense debates about conservative visibility and free speech at the University. Amidst criticism about the administration’s messaging surrounding politics and a transition in university leadership soon to come, Student Life sat down with Chancellor-elect Andrew Martin to discuss his vision for a more inclusive university. This story is the first of a two-part series examining Martin’s plans to pursue diversity initiatives at the University. What follows is Martin’s views on free speech and political dialogue at Washington University.

Grace Bruton | Student Life

Chancellor-elect Andrew Martin discusses diversity at Wash. U. at the Day of Discovery, Dialogue & Action Feb. 20. Martin expressed his commitment to pursue diversity initiatives, uphold the University’s free speech policy and encourage dialogue on campus.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF POLITICAL DEBATES ON CAMPUS

While the University administration has consistently stated its support for free speech and open debate, tensions within the Washington University community demonstrate that the administration has not adequately addressed issues of political diversity and dialogue.

In November, Student Life published a feature on conservative students who expressed feelings of social isolation as a result of their political views. In response, some students criticized the idea that conservative students could be marginalized at this university. A staff column argued that “dismissing unproductive conservative ideas can open up our opportunities for meaningful discussion.” Numerous opinion pieces were published in response, including Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Lori White’s letter to the editor affirming the University’s commitment to creating an environment where “diversity of identity [and] thought” is welcomed.

The emergence of the #ResistWhiteU movement reflected some students’ concern that some political ideas can invalidate the identities and experiences of marginalized students. In other words, some students believe that to “entertain ideologies” for the sake of debate does more harm than good. To affirm this point, a protest occurred during the Feb. 20 Day of Discovery, Dialogue & Action in which students disrupted White’s introductory remarks, as a result of her earlier letter to the editor.

IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AS A “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE”

Washington University’s administration has expressed its commitment to fostering an open and inclusive environment, as well as upholding the University’s free speech policy. The free speech policy reads, in part, “to protect the freedom of expression, the university should respect the expression of ideas, even those that are offensive or unpopular, by all members of the university community.”

Martin wants to continue to uphold the existing free speech policy and encourage campus discussions about what free speech means at Washington University, specifically.

“One of the things I’m really proud of is the very aggressive free speech policy that we have. I think it’s important for us to talk about it,” Martin said. “Not only in times where there’s conflict…[and] where there’s outrage, but also to sort of talk about it in normal, in the normal course of events.”

One of his goals is to sustain political dialogue on campus, even when ideas that are offensive to some students are introduced.

“Offensive ideas are ideas, and they need to be called out as being offensive ideas. And our job is to sort of lay on the table why those ideas are offensive or wrong, right? Rather than trying to stifle them,” Martin said. “I think that’s the approach.”

As of now, it is not clear what Martin’s definition of “offensive” is. Every individual has different ideas of what it means to hold offensive viewpoints, and the recent campus debate about whether some conservative ideas should expressed and debated reflects this ambiguity.

On March 21, President Donald Trump signed an executive order promoting free speech and debate at colleges and universities “through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions…[and] with stated institutional policies” for private institutions. In response, the University reiterated its commitment to upholding free speech, and stated that “open and robust debate…are at the very core of our values.” White indicated that the executive order would not impact the University’s free speech policies.

For Martin, diversity of thought and perspective is a “fundamental principle” at Washington University.

“I think it’s important, particularly given the feeling of any of our conservative students, whether they’re socially conservative, fiscally conservative or religiously conservative, for me affirmatively to stand up and say that those voices are welcome on this campus,” Martin said. “But [that’s] something that isn’t articulated very much on many college campuses.”

The recent political debates on campus indicate to some that this sentiment is not articulated sufficiently at Washington University. Some students feel that the University is not doing enough to actively promote ideological diversity on campus. Statements do not necessarily amount to action.

The starting point, according to Martin, is creating space for students, faculty and staff to engage in meaningful dialogue with each other.

“All of our forces in society are pushing us to actually not learn and engage, in that way,” Martin said. “I think it’s the University’s responsibility to provide programs and to provide spaces and platforms for those conversations to take place.”

Martin believes that students are also responsible for ushering in a change in Washington University’s political climate. He cites the major institutional changes that have occurred as a result of student activism and engagement, such as the early work of the Association of Black Collegians, now known as the Association of Black Students.

“I also think there’s a real opportunity for students to lead,” Martin said. “Many of the times where the University has made significant changes for the best, it’s been led by our students.”

Martin cites a student group at the University of Michigan named WeListen as an example of how students can play a role in facilitating dialogue across difference. Founded in Sept. 2017, WeListen is an organization dedicated to encouraging open dialogue between conservative and liberal students on campus. According to Martin, the organization has expanded to chapters at college campuses around the country.

He also sees opportunities within the curriculum to encourage political dialogue, especially intergroup dialogue courses.

Martin referenced a Michigan political science course “Beyond Partisanship” as an example of how to foster productive debate within an academic space. The course featured speakers who were invited to discuss current policy issues in the United States, ranging from the opioid crisis to homelessness. Students then worked with each other to produce tangible solutions.

“I think that there are great opportunities within the curriculum. And it requires really thoughtful leadership,” Martin said. “It’d be faculty members who are really attuned to what’s going on across the political spectrum, to develop courses which look at important issues from a variety of perspectives.”

THE MICHIGAN CASE

Martin is no stranger to campus controversy generated by free speech debates. At the University of Michigan, where Martin was the former dean of the College of Literature, Sciences and the Arts, campus debates have centered around controversial speakers coming to campus.

In Oct. 2017, student protests erupted after Charles Murray was invited to speak at an event co-sponsored by the university’s chapter of College Republicans and American Enterprise Institute University of Michigan Executive Council. Murray is a political scientist who correlated race and mental ability in his book “The Bell Curve,” according to The Michigan Daily.

Michigan’s administration received criticism for working with the student groups to allow Murray to speak. Michigan, though, is a public university that is bound to comply with the First Amendment. Nonetheless, Martin is committed to working constructively to ensure the physical safety of the speaker. What Martin is most proud of is providing a space for intellectual discussions to take place, regardless of the controversial views in question.

“One of the things that I was really proud of…where there were multiple faculty panels, open to the public to engage with students and talk about why some of his views are factually wrong. And that’s exactly what should happen, right?”

In Nov. 2017, Richard Spencer requested to speak at the University of Michigan as part of his college campus speaking tour. Spencer was not invited by a student group, but instead made the request independently. Michigan administrators moved to process the request, citing several reasons, including the university’s status as a public institution bound by compliance to the First Amendment. Students again protested Spencer’s speech, and launched a #StopSpencer Week of Action, in which a series of protests were scheduled, including a sit-in in Martin’s office.

Following questions from faculty members about whether to cancel classes in light of these protests, Martin was adamant that the university needed to continue upholding its academic mission.

“My answer is teach. That’s what we’re here for,” Martin said. “Our job is not to shut down the university or cancel class just because some group of students wants to make an important political point.”

Richard Spencer ultimately decided to cancel the remainder of his college tour, but Michigan officials upheld their commitment to rent a venue for Spencer as long as the event could be hosted safely.

In light of the criticism from Michigan students, Martin acknowledged that student activists and administrators do not always see eye-to-eye in these circumstances.

“I think student activism is a great thing,” Martin said. “That doesn’t always mean that we can be immediately responsive. And it doesn’t always mean we’re going to do what students like.”

Martin creates a distinction between an individual who is invited by students, versus an individual who requests to speak at the University. For an invited speaker, Martin commits to working with students to ensure that all perspectives are heard and to ensure that the event featuring the speaker can be held in a safe way.

“I mean, there’s lots of people who’d like to come talk here. We don’t have to welcome [them]. But if members of our community want to bring someone in, even someone that most other members of the community would find to be outrageous or despicable, it’s…my responsibility and ultimately [the] responsibility of the administration to make sure that happens in a safe way.”

While Washington University is a private institution that is not bound to comply with the First Amendment, that does not change Martin’s approach to free speech.

“The way in which I would navigate these situations at Washington University is exactly the same as how I navigated them at the University of Michigan,” Martin said. “We’re not bound by the First Amendment, unlike a public university, and I think that the right policy is for us to behave as if we are.”

PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION

Another salient issue at Washington University concerns the frequency and form of university-issued statements concerning national and international issues. Within the past two years, the University has commented on a variety of events, ranging from the Title Mine rally last spring to Hurricane Michael in Oct. 2018. Overall, the administration has faced criticism for the lack of consistent messaging.

Martin indicated a clear departure from his successor’s approach to university-wide statements.

“I think I’m going to be communicating—and the University will be communicating—less than it has been in the past,” Martin said.

Martin cites practicality as a primary reason for limiting university communications.

“There are horrible things that are happening on this planet every day. And for us to add one more press release to the pile, to say that ‘this is bad’…You’re chasing your tail.”

The University will continue to comment on issues that “affect our core mission as an educational institution,” according to Martin.

“There will be times where national or international events directly impact members of our community, and those are the cases where we’re going to talk.”

But the administration’s delayed response to the Christchurch Massacre earlier this month drew criticism from students, especially in light of the near-immediate statement issued by Chancellor Wrighton in response to the Tree of Life synagogue attack in Oct. 2018.

Martin fully acknowledged the lack of consistent statements from the administration, and committed to creating a set of internal policies that will guide university communications moving forward.

“I think consistency is very important; and, particularly in this semester of transition, things are not as clear and transparent as I’d like them to be,” he said. “So, one of the things that we’re working on right now is a set of principles that we’re going to use to decide when we’re going to communicate and when we’re not going to communicate about important issues of the day.”

While these principles will not be fully determined before the end of the the spring semester, they will likely go into effect within the first few years of his tenure. Martin plans to make these plans available to the public in order for students, faculty and staff to have a clear understanding on what they can expect from the administration.

What is clear is that the University will make their renewed focus on political diversity clear for the incoming class of students. As part of the 2019 Common Reading Program. the Class of 2023 will read Nadine Strossen’s “Hate: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship.”

According to White, the University wanted to increase students’ understanding of the principles of free speech. During the revamped Bear Beginnings orientation, a new session will be introduced in which students are provided with “tools to engage in conversation.”

If the past few months are any indication, it is clear that “dialogue across difference” will be a defining characteristic of the Martin era.

“We’re holding up dialogue as an important value of citizenship,” Martin said.

Additional reporting by Jordan Coley