News
WashU’s drop in free speech rankings: students reflect on free speech concerns
WashU has dropped to 187 out of 251 colleges in College Pulse’s 2025 free speech rankings for the 2023-24 academic year. The University, which previously ranked 135 out of 248, received a “slightly below average speech climate,” with especially poor grades in administrative support (198th), self-censorship (211th), and comfort expressing ideas (221st).
While WashU ranked 32nd in tolerance for liberal speakers and 104th in tolerance for conservative speakers, its overall grade was decreased due to categories like administrative support of free speech.
This drop follows arrests and suspensions during last year’s pro-Palestine protest in the spring of the 2023-24 academic year and alterations to the Student Code of Conduct that have caused concerns within certain student groups with regards to protected speech.
In response to the ranking drop, Julie Flory — WashU spokesperson and Vice Chancellor for Marketing & Communications — affirmed administrative support of free speech.
“We know to take any ranking with a grain of salt, but I can tell you free expression is encouraged and valued at WashU,” Flory said. “Nothing has changed or will change in that regard … regardless of whether we move up or down in any given ranking.”
Mark Kamimura-Jimenéz, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; Nicole Gore, Associate Dean for Student Code of Conduct; and Dean of Students Rob Wild declined to comment on the administration’s view of free speech on campus.
Senior Eman Teshome, Green Action Executive Board member, said that in her experience, students typically lean on each other for support instead of going to the administration.
“I’ve been pretty used to seeing students having to come together for each other due to the administration and the student body at times having different priorities. [I]t ends up becoming that students are relying on each other,” Teshome said.
At the start of this semester, WashU debuted a new Student Code of Conduct and the ad hoc committee to take into account student feedback on the Demonstrations and Disruption policy. WashU also held several free speech events hosted by Chancellor Andrew Martin. Flory said that the continued frequency of these free speech events remains to be seen.
“It so happened that there were a number of such events planned by University departments at the start of this semester,” Flory said. “Whether that pace continues will depend on future events that are planned and the Chancellor’s availability, so it’s hard to say what the schedule could look like.”
College Pulse’s survey measures 14 components, with “self-censorship” added this year. According to College Pulse’s survey, WashU struggles with students not speaking their minds, with the University ranking 211th in self-censorship. As one example, 76% of respondents stated that they found the Israel-Palestine conflict “difficult” to discuss, the 8th highest out of all 251 colleges surveyed.
President of College Democrats, senior Saish Satyal, described a hesitancy among the student body towards raising concerns to the administration, based on the administration’s policies and prior reactions.
“[Through their policies regarding the Palestine protests,] the administration [says], ‘You’re all hateful, hateful speech. You guys suck.’” Satyal said. “You feel like you’re at an institution that doesn’t quite support you, so of course you’re not going to be inclined to engage in dialogue.”
Teshome said she was surprised by the way in which Martin discussed free speech on campus at one of his aforementioned events.
“[Chancellor Martin] said, almost word-for-word, that the First Amendment does not apply to WashU, phrased pretty stone-cold,” Teshome said. “While it’s true because we’re a private institution, you have to be very mindful about the way you relay that. At the end of the day … laws and morals are not the same. WashU is willing to leverage laws and rules and policies in their best interest.”
According to John Inazu — a professor at WashU’s School of Law whose scholarship focuses on First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion — events like fireside chats do not make free speech policies clear to students, which is necessary to cultivate dialogue.
“One separate question from the culture of free speech is, how are students made aware of what their rights, responsibilities, and limits are under existing University policies?” Inazu said.
The rights and limits of students’ free speech on campus have been called into question following a revision to Section III A of the Student Code of Conduct, which now states, “Any Student or Student Group that aids, conspires with, attempts or agrees to commit or protect a Student or Student Group who commits a Code Offense may be held accountable and sanctioned to the same extent as the Student or Student Group who has committed the Offense.”
When administrators first considered changing the Code of Conduct, they presented the changes to Student Union to get student feedback, feedback that junior Natalia León Díaz — Chair of SU’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee as well as the Association of Latin American Students’ (ALAS) Social Justice Lead — said was largely not incorporated in the newest iteration of the Code.
“Last semester, Dean Gore and Rob Wild came to an SU joint session to present changes to the Student Code of Conduct, and they asked us to provide feedback,” León Díaz said. “The fact that there was no alert about how our feedback was considered shows that maybe it [was] more performative than anything.”
León Díaz said that after her interview with Student Life she had a private conversation on Oct. 22 with Gore and Wild, which changed her opinion on the performative nature of their actions.
To León Díaz, the recent changes to the Student Code of Conduct present dangers to student’s free speech rights.
“[The Code’s language] might deter student groups from showing support to certain causes, from dissenting from the administration, because the language is so vague,” León Díaz said. “Now, ALAS is extremely careful and reserved about what language we put out in our social media and our statements … because we don’t know if we’re going to be sanctioned”
Satyal, who is also the president of WashU Ashoka, said this revision might have come due to many student groups signing on to WashU Resist’s statement after the arrests during the April 27 protest. Satyal brought the statement to the Ashoka board at the time, but given new regulations he is unsure if he would taken the same course of action now.
“Now, with the student code of conduct change, I’m not sure I would bring [the statement] in front of my board,” Satyal said. “It’s not because I don’t strongly believe in it — it’s because I don’t want to risk my entire organization getting sanctioned, because we might get implicated into a political stance.”
León Díaz said she feels that students have to initiate dialogue with administrators based on her experiences in SU Senate.
“I think there is an expectation that students should be the ones to be constantly trying to bridge those relationships with administrators, but I believe that a relationship that is mutually beneficial should also be reciprocated.” León Díaz said.
President of College Republicans, senior Mason Letteau Stallings, said that administration is supportive of students and instead students need to focus on doing their part to create a constructive culture of free speech.
“We need to do better, and it is ultimately our fault, the students. And I say [that] I am also at fault for this,” Letteau Stallings said. “We just need to be willing to speak our minds more, I think the administration has been clear that they will have the backs of those students [speaking their minds] if need be.”
Inazu said the “social dimensions” of speech, such as stigmatization, can result in self-censorship.
Letteau Stallings said that it is difficult to uphold free speech when we exist in a community that is bound to have topics that are not considered acceptable topics of conversation.
“I think that Chancellor Martin has broadly done a good job in promoting free speech. [But] when you have a community or a culture, certain things will be taboo, and the question is, where do you draw the line?” Letteau Stallings said. “I think conflicting taboos have created a culture that is not opposed, in theory, to free speech, but where it becomes hard to articulate various viewpoints. There are times where one could say, ‘Wow, I wish I could say what I think, but I don’t want to, because I don’t want to feel alienated from my peers, and I don’t want to feel alienated from the professor.’”
Teshome said loud online voices, particularly on Sidechat, can make people feel unsafe in expressing their views.
“I feel like people have their own opinions, but a person hopefully wouldn’t go out of their way, in-person, to make someone feel unsafe about their voice,” Teshome said. “But you definitely do see now that we have people getting too comfortable with being anonymous [online].”
Satyal feels that while people are vocal online, students are still relatively disengaged.
“Everybody loves posting on social media, but when it comes to really engaging and thinking about it, there’s less of that,” Satyal said. “It’s not that free speech is declining, it’s that speech overall seems to be declining. Anecdotally, a lot of student organizers that I have talked to have said that WashU is a rather politically apathetic campus.”
To help create more nuanced dialogue in the classroom, Letteau Stallings hopes instructors will help teach and represent different perspectives.
“One has to be very proactive in promoting different views, and a good way that a professor could do that within the classroom setting is to put forward multiple different ideas, and, whatever the dominant idea is, to kind of push back on that,” Letteau Stallings said. “The professors that do that, and do it well, can really foster deep discussion.”
Satyal agreed with Stallings and reinforced the benefits of a small, discussion-based classroom where healthy disagreement and dialogue are encouraged.
“I think a professor should be like, ‘What do you mean by that? Why do you think that? Explain more,’” Satyal said. “[Students] should be intellectually challenged to hold their ground … A teacher legitimizing a contradictory viewpoint forces you to acknowledge, in some way, when you’re arguing against it, that it’s not insane”
Letteau Stallings emphasized that disagreement with someone does not mean that they are evil.
“You may think that they’re wrong, but they’re not evil,” Letteau Stalling said. “Oftentimes, if I were to put myself in someone else’s shoes, I could understand their position. I think that matters a lot.”
WashU Resist did not respond to Student Life’s request for an interview.
Hussein Amuri, Student Union President, and Lee Epstein, Professor at the School of Law, were unavailable for an interview.