Skip to Content

VADNOS: Civil discourse shouldn’t come at the expense of student activism

In the wake of policy changes targeting student activists, Vanderbilt’s hypocritical promotion of civil discourse illustrates that our institution does not have a true commitment to free expression.
Black-and-white photograph of Kirkland Hall with tents in front of it, as photographed on April 4, 2024. (Hustler Multimedia/George Albu)
Black-and-white photograph of Kirkland Hall with tents in front of it, as photographed on April 4, 2024. (Hustler Multimedia/George Albu)
George Albu

“Free expression is essential to a university’s very purpose.” 

This is the first line on the “Vanderbilt’s Commitment to Free Expression” website, which outlines the university’s emphasis on open forums, institutional neutrality and civil discourse as avenues for students to share their views and be exposed to new ideas. The claim is correct — freedom of expression is necessary for universities to effectively fulfill their primary objective: the development of knowledge. Without the ability for students and faculty alike to raise new controversial ideas and arguments, our understanding of the world could not progress. In fact, we would probably still believe that the Earth is at the center of our solar system and that noxious miasmas spread disease!

Being confronted with the uncomfortable and unorthodox is necessary to develop critical thinking skills, foster open-mindedness and spark innovation, traits that Vanderbilt students and staff alike should strive to achieve. However, while the Vanderbilt administration clearly recognizes that free expression plays a critical role in developing such abilities, their recent actions fail to reflect these values. Recent policy revisions targeting campus demonstrations, overnight gatherings and temporary displays either prohibit or place undue burdens on members of the campus community who wish to call attention to the issues they care about. 

Vanderbilt Students for Justice in Palestine executive board member Ezri Tyler, a junior, said that she believes the policy changes are explicitly designed to silence student activists.

“The freedom of expression policies are clearly an attempt to put a stop to any and all protests and are anti-ethical to any real ‘freedom of expression,’” Tyler said. “As [Chancellor Daniel] Diermeier made clear last semester, freedom of speech is not a right on private university campuses, and he and the rest of the administration have total control over what students can and cannot say at Vanderbilt.”

Beyond explicitly discouraging activism through the handbook guidelines, the far less transparent student accountability process has also stifled free expression by leaning into severe punishments for campus protestors. Vanderbilt was one of only two universities to expel pro-Palestine protesters last spring, despite there being more than 3,000 student arrests across the country. Whether or not you believe these actions to be just, Vanderbilt’s response to pro-Palestinian activism was undoubtedly more extreme than many of our peer institutions. Witnessing fellow students be arrested, suspended and expelled has contributed to many student organizers seeking anonymity or self-censoring their political views.

At the same time, Vanderbilt is investing heavily in the new Dialogue Vanderbilt initiative, which aims to help students engage in constructive conversations across ideological differences. By facilitating civil discourse-focused workshops, faculty training, speaker series and other campus activities, Dialogue Vanderbilt is trying to bridge divides and foster mutual understanding on campus. 

Dialogue Vanderbilt Student Advisor Nick Geoghegan, a senior, said that the program’s primary focus is starting difficult conversations on campus.

“[Dialogue Vanderbilt] provides students and community members with the space to converse and the tools [and] knowledge to do so openly and effectively,” said Geoghegan.

While these goals are admirable, creating a space for the respectful exchange of views should not come at the expense of student activism. Vanderbilt administrators need to acknowledge that civil discourse and activism are complementary; both contribute to a university culture that encourages students to engage critically with the world around them and embrace new views. Rather than viewing activism as an obstacle to productive dialogue, we should recognize that it often sets the stage for meaningful discourse by bringing issues into the limelight and encouraging uncomfortable conversations. 

If Vanderbilt truly wants to become the beacon for freedom of expression as it proclaims itself to be, it must embrace the necessity of both activism and discourse in our campus community. It must: seek students’ opinions on proposed changes to campus speech policies, supply clear explanations for why protests are prevented from occuring or why civilly-disobedient protestors received certain punishments, provide increased funding and administrative support for aspiring activists and relax the time, place and manner restrictions that constrain students’ abilities to publicly demonstrate. 

Yes, we need to be able to productively disagree and listen to new perspectives — but often, action trumps conversation.

About the Contributors
Jason Vadnos
Jason Vadnos, Staffer-in-Training
Jason Vadnos ('27) is in Peabody College, majoring in human & organizational development and culture, advocacy & leadership with a business minor. Outside of writing opinion articles for The Hustler and the Vanderbilt Political Review, Jason is passionate about playing video games, discovering the great outdoors and exploring new international cuisines. He can be reached at [email protected].
George Albu
George Albu, Deputy Opinion Editor
George Albu (‘27) is majoring in medicine, health and society in the College of Arts and Science. When not working for The Hustler, he enjoys watching video essays, exploring Nashville and going to the Rec. He can be reached at [email protected].
More to Discover