As students return for fall semester, classroom dynamics may feel different under Ohio State’s new free speech policy. Credit: Nicole Nowicki | Lantern Reporter

Ohio State formally implemented policy changes in May surrounding free speech on campus, creating an anonymous reporting mechanism for free speech violations and placing the priority of speech above civil and respectful discussions. 

The new policy, titled “Campus Free Speech Policy,” works to reaffirm the university’s commitment to free speech on campus and align university policies with Ohio law. This is the first semester after its implementation, and faculty members have already voiced concerns, specifically about classroom dynamics. 

“Civility is very important and, actually, in my view, facilitates a free discussion of diverse ideas,” William “Chip” Eveland, professor of communication and professor of political science by courtesy, said. “I do think it is important for us, when intellectually defensible, to encourage people with all sorts of perspectives to weigh in on important topics. It’s how those perspectives are communicated that civility and mutual respect relate to.” 

Recent surveys conducted by other large public universities, like the University of Madison-Wisconsin, found that the biggest obstacle to free speech on campus was self-censorship because of the fear students would be judged by their classmates for their opinions. 

This is a phenomenon that can’t be easily addressed with a policy, Eveland said.

“It’s just the nature of the human condition that people who express especially extreme minority opinions oftentimes face social consequences independent of what the formal rules of a classroom, or a university or a country may be,” Eveland said. “It is a real thing, and I don’t think it can be legislated from a social perspective.” 

Some faculty groups, like the Ohio State chapter of the American Association of University Professors, spoke out against the new policy when it was being formally drafted, citing concerns about how it would impact instructors at the university. Pranav Jani, president of Ohio State’s chapter of the association and director of Asian American studies, shares his own concerns.

“Faculty who are regularly targeted for our speech — I don’t think these policies are to protect us,” Jani said. “I think, in fact, these policies are happening in a climate where that kind of demonization of certain kinds of speech is actually increasing that targeting of faculty.” 

The free speech policy also creates a reporting mechanism that allows students, faculty and student groups to file complaints against university employees, which includes faculty, staff, graduate associates and student employees. These complaints can be filed anonymously through the Office of University Compliance and Integrity.

However, the anonymous reporting mechanism has left some faculty feeling like the policy leaves them and other students vulnerable to potentially dubious claims. 

“If we want to make a classroom essentially a safe space for free and open debate where people can feel comfortable to put forth perspectives that they maybe haven’t fully thought out, the notion that those ideas can be reported without context or much evidence works against the notion of free and open expression in the classroom,” Eveland said. “Trying to formally police those things really is inherently going to have cases that are on the margin that will end up seen as a violation of a policy, when in fact its spirit is trying to achieve the same thing that maybe some hope the policy would.” 

In many college classrooms, students are also actively engaging with material by putting forth their own interpretations and opinions. For some faculty, challenging students’ ways of thinking is a crucial part of the teaching process to expose them to varying perspectives, but Eveland said he worries these exercises may be misconstrued under the new policy. 

“To challenge someone on the basis of the facts or the arguments they provide is not an attempt to stifle speech, it’s an attempt at education,” Eveland said. “This policy may lead people who come in with their biased perspectives, as everyone has, to report such efforts or to interpret such efforts as an attempt to silence them.” 

According to Ohio Revised Code Section 3345.0215, which went into effect July of 2022, all public universities must reaffirm their commitment to promoting free speech on campus and establish a process through which students and faculty can submit complaints of free speech violations, which Chris Booker, university spokesperson, said is reflected in Ohio State’s policy due to this established law. 

“Ohio State developed the policy through the established university policy process, including by soliciting feedback from students, faculty and staff to ensure that the policy emphasizes the value of free speech and promotes its application through established university rules, procedures and practices,” Booker said in a statement.

Booker also said the university promotes a “culture of welcoming differences, making connections among people and ideas, and encouraging open-minded exploration, risk-taking and freedom of expression.”

“As a land-grant institution, the university takes seriously its role in promoting and supporting public discourse,” the statement continued. “The university is steadfastly committed to protecting the First Amendment right to free speech and academic freedom on its campus, and to upholding the university’s academic motto –  ‘Education for Citizenship.’”

Jani said the free speech policy is emblematic of the current political climate surrounding universities, including the proposal of Ohio Senate Bill 83, which aims to overhaul Ohio’s public universities with major reforms that will limit diversity training requirements, prevent public universities from taking positions on controversial topics and prevent faculty from striking. Many students and faculty have spoken out against the bill, according to Lantern reports, citing concerns that the bill would jeopardize academic freedom.

“Intellectual diversity is something we value,” Jani said. “We want people to let out disparate ideas and have disparate voices — this policy is more about the politics in this moment.”