In recent years, controversial topics of high interest have become extremely prevalent in US society, bringing up issues of free speech rights across the country. Particularly on college campuses, in the wake of national debates over DEI policies and campus protests, Bucknell University finds itself caught in the middle of balancing the rights of students and faculty to speech and academic freedom with state and federal-level mandates. Our article investigates how different campus groups, from the AAUP to the Open Discourse Coalition, are responding to these challenges.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Bucknell faces significant challenges in fostering an environment where students and faculty feel comfortable expressing their views. In FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, which surveyed over 58,000 students across 250 colleges, Bucknell ranked 126th. “This was, in part, due to student survey respondents saying they did not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts with peers and professors on campus, fearing having difficult conversations, and not feeling their university administrators would stand up and defend free speech on campus,” explained Ryan Ansloan, Senior Program Officer at FIRE.
While Bucknell, as a private institution, isn’t bound by the same free expression obligations as public universities such as Penn State, the university promises free speech protections to its community. Bucknell’s policies state that “students, faculty and staff enjoy the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, subject to institutional limits that protect the regular and orderly operation of the campus.” However, FIRE suggests that merely guaranteeing these protections isn’t enough. Ansloan emphasized that it is more important, and even critical, that the university actually lives up to that guarantee.
One key recommendation from FIRE is for Bucknell to adopt a “version” of the Chicago Principles, which over 100 other institutions have already embraced. According to Ansloan, doing so could help address some of the specific challenges revealed in FIRE’s campus surveys, specifically students’ hesitancy to engage in difficult conversations and skepticism surrounding the administration’s support for free speech. The Chicago Statement explicitly outlines how free speech rights are put into practice, and affirms “the broadest latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.” FIRE also recommends that Bucknell implement a Statement of Institutional Neutrality, to let the campus community know that the university is committed to protecting the free speech of its members. “We would be more than happy to assist them in that process,” Ansloan asserted.
Bucknell’s American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter offers a different perspective on why this adoption might actually undermine the university’s existing protections. “The Chicago Principles were deemed unnecessary at Bucknell, where academic freedom is already protected in our governance documents, such as the Faculty Handbook,” explains Professor Ken Field, President of AAUP’s Bucknell Advocacy Chapter. He argues that rather than strengthening academic freedom, these principles could weaken it by “confusing academic freedom and free speech and by equating the academic freedom of faculty with those of students.” According to Field, the principles prioritize student free speech rights over faculty academic freedom by “specifying punitive actions for faculty without corresponding actions for students,” which he does not believe is the correct way to handle the free speech issue.
As for the current state of free speech at Bucknell, Field suggests that it mirrors the situation at other colleges and universities. He believes that Bucknell does a fine job at protecting free speech as long as it doesn’t infringe upon safety and well-being or academic freedom. When asked what the most pressing issues may be in regards to academic freedom, Field states that “the most pressing issues involve the possibility that the administration may try to restrict academic freedom to accommodate unconstitutional federal policies or executive orders.” To combat these directives, the AAUP, as part of the American Federation of Teachers, is organizing around these issues filing amicus briefs as appropriate. On the local level, he and the Bucknell Chapter are communicating with the provost and general counsel to seek information about these issues, and gathering information about the impact of these changes in policy at Bucknell, which they plan to share with the provost.
In 2025, Bucknell University continues to publicly express its commitment to protecting the rights to free expression on campus. The university states that its goal in advocating for free speech furthers its mission to “educate students for a lifetime of critical thinking and strong leadership characterized by continued exploration,creativity, and imagination.” (Bucknell University, 2025). In times where access to free speech is being constantly tested, the university has claimed to commit to protecting the accessibility of free expression on campus for students, faculty, and staff.
An interview with Dr. Vernese Edghill-Walden, Vice President of Equity and Inclusive Excellence at Bucknell, has clarified the programs that Bucknell University has been facilitating in order to encourage students’ and faculty members’ access to free speech on campus. As an institution that supports free speech, publically highlighted on the university website, Dr. Walden believes that Bucknell values and welcomes free speech because “it’s a vital part of the community to build critical thinkers”.
An important clarification Dr. Walden makes is the distinction between the university facilitating free speech and condoning hate speech, indicating one of the successes of her department is educating students, faculty, and staff about the differences between the two. Hate speech, a common topic many individuals at Bucknell and beyond conflate, was defined by President Bravman as “Hateful speech, acts or symbols – directed toward any individual or group” (Bucknell University, 2023). One of Dr. Walden’s goals in her department was to distinguish the difference between the two, stating, “Free speech can hurt people’s feelings, but it doesn’t necessarily make it hate speech”. As a representative of Bucknell University, Dr. Walden felt that one of the most pressing free speech issues today was the mass fear and hysteria over speaking out. Regardless of the topic, officials – like Dr. Walden – at the very top of the university noticed a large fear in students, faculty, and staff from speaking out for fear of potentially being “hurt, embarrassed, or to be wrong”. It has become clear that the fear and apprehension of speaking out isn’t coming from a lack of knowledge about students’ rights to free speech, but a fear of a penalty of some kind for their opinions.
The Israel-Palestine conflict, which sparked heated tensions across students on university campuses starting in October in 2023, inspired Dr. Walden’s department to develop methods to facilitate healthy conversations between the Bucknell community. The Dignity and Dialogue Circles, launched at Bucknell and co-trained by the Division of Equity and Inclusive Excellence and the Division of Talent, Culture, and Human Resources, seeks to create a space in order to facilitate healthy discussions about real-world topics that students, faculty, and staff had been yearning for. The circle conversations encourage participants to speak openly and freely from the “I” perspective and, with the facilitation of a trained mediator, allow participants to question and have conversations with one another. The goals of these conversations are to secure healthy ways of facilitating free speech.
Dr. Edghill-Walden also commented on the importance of facilitating in-person conversations vs online communication. Online free speech, “lacks and minimizes accountability”, said Dr. Edghill-Walden. Being able to post comments online creates a one-way line of communication, where people can throw out and say anything they want without having to defend their beliefs. The Dignity and Dialogue style of communication creates a safe space for individuals to share their beliefs regarding different high-interest topics.
The student body perspective of free speech reveals a shift in the understanding of what is actually permissible on campus in ways that stray from regulation. For instance, the Bucknellian, the school’s primary paper, is non-funded by the University to prevent any biased publishings (Bucknellian.com). This, on paper, aligns directly with the university’s policy on free speech practices. In actuality, students often do not feel comfortable contributing to the paper due to the fear of backlash from fellow students, alumni, faculty, and locals. Additionally, there are limitations to receiving direct comments from staff which dulls the degree of freedom in the commentating.
“You always have to go through Communications when interviewing staff,” commented Kelsey Werkheiser, the editor-in-chief of the Bucknellian, when describing her struggles with pursuing quotes from important individuals. “I see no reason that I can’t get a quote from the director of an office that was one of the major organizers of an event, but it all boils down to keeping up appearances”. This idea of Bucknell protecting its image from negative views of the school elicited by students is not usual, especially when it is done to prevent any uncertainty about enrolling from potential students and their families.
Freas Hall is home to the admissions department where the Bucknellian is often displayed proudly, showcasing the work of the student journalists. Paige Berzinski, a coordinator for the admissions department, described a particular instance where the admissions department removed the newspaper from sight due to the cover article’s statement that an alarming number of women on Bucknell’s campus report cases of sexual assault.
Additionally, students are not allowed to protest on Malesardi Quad. Malesardi Quad connects the academic buildings and serves as a spot for students to congregate. There is no doubt of how impressive the quad is, Tour guides frequent the quad, often resulting in positive reception from the experience. The restrictions on protesting in this space inhibit the message that students and faculty alike would be attempting to communicate, effectively limiting the freedom of expression on campus.
With federal policies evolving and universities nationwide grappling with these issues, Bucknell University’s navigation of this complex landscape of academic freedom and open discourse is crucial to maintaining the integrity of freedom of speech. While other universities have faced intense backlash for mishandling global conflicts and the censorship of students and faculty, Bucknell remains a leader as an advocate for mutual respect, civility, and free expression.