The Limits of Expression: Bucknell’s Free Speech Dilemma – Bea's Blog for Public Writing and Media

Bucknell University faces increased scrutiny over its handling of First Amendment rights despite offering numerous free speech programs. Questions remain about how brand management affects student expression across controversies including the Israeli-Palestinian war, potential censorship in student publications, and campus speaker disputes.

Are Bucknell Free Speech Programs Really Effective?

By Alexis Killeen

When Jane Fonda, an Academy Award winning actress and activist, visited Bucknell University this past year to discuss the topic of ‘freedom of expression’, dozens of Bucknellians desperately sought out the opportunity to speak with her about their personal experiences with exercising their first amendment rights. Invited by the university through the Bucknell Forum series to address her perspective on the current state of ‘freedom of expression’ in the US, Jane Fonda was approached by multiple students who – ironically – felt that their access to freedom of speech and rights to protest were limited on campus. At a point in American history where our access to freedom of expression is more important than ever before, students at Bucknell University have reported “attempts to inhibit free speech on campus” regarding highly controversial topics from higher-up university administrators despite multiple, recent attempts at programming in order to combat this concern. Students’ continued frustration with their perceived limited access to utilizing their first amendment rights, despite university programs focused on the freedom of expression like the Bucknell Forum 2023-2024 entitled ‘Freedom of Expression’, Dignity and Dialogue circles, as well as the new Bucknell Institute for Dignity and Democracy suggests the possibility that the university’s willingness to give students access to freedom of expression and free speech is conditional to only the programs that the university has created. Between students and administration, a disconnect has formed regarding what is effective for the university community. It has become increasingly clear that programs intentionally designed to increase freedom of expression appear to have the opposite effect on students.

As an educational institution, Bucknell claims to be committed to free expression. Specifically, the university identifies as an “environment that prioritizes the open exchange of ideas and debate” . Based on these values, Bucknell has begun to develop and hone programs with the intention of One of the programs to be released this upcoming year is the Bucknell Initiative for Dialogue and Democracy. What it will be affectionately known as BIDD, the initiative aims to encourage nonpartisan dialogue between students to support free expression. The program was initially developed in order to, according to Bravamn ,“equip students with the skills to navigate a deeply polarized society – a deeply polarized and digital society – while upholding democratic values”. BIDD, created and developed by university president John Bravman, has been highly encouraged and supported by the board of trustees. In his state of the university address, Bravman noted that multiple members of Bucknell’s board of trustees have come forward to invest in the program. BIDD has generated a lot of excitement amongst high-up administrators at the university, yet few students know of the program’s existence. Despite it’s announcement in Bravman’s university address, students are unaware of not just the program’s existence, but of its potential impact. “I have never heard about this program before,” said Jordyn Weber, a junior psychology major at Bucknell, “It sounds like a great idea, but it just hasn’t been shared with the rest of us yet”. Bucknell’s Institute for Dignity and Democracy, as well meaning as it is, is just an example of a program that due to failure of advertising, hasn’t made it’s impact clear on its students, impacting students’ access to the program.

Bucknell’s new Dignity and Dialogue Circles, developed by the Division of Equity and Inclusive Excellence, is another example of programming that leaves a lackluster impact on students and their attempt to exercise their first amendment rights. Bucknell media pages advertise the circles as “organized opportunities” to discuss important and controversial issues. While this program has been in effect for roughly a year, low student turnout (actual reports of student turnout has yet to be reported on the university website) has been reported and few events have been held, limiting student’s access to this opportunity. Liv King, a sophomore philosophy major at Bucknell, is one of the few Bucknell students who participated in the Dignity and Dialogue circle. Bucknell hosted Dignity and Dialogue Circle Discussions in January of 2025 for students in Greek life to discuss community issues, leadership, and how to work together to enhance the Greek community. When asked why she participated in the activity, King mentioned that participation was mandatory because of her position, which explained the mass of student attendance. When she was followed up with the question of whether or not she would participate in a circle experience again, she said, “I think the exercise at its core the program is helpful to allow everyone to share their opinions, especially if you’re coming from a minority perspective, but the conversation felt poorly executed and fell flat with a lot of the questions we were being asked.”

King also noted that while she thinks that Dignity and Dialogue Circles can be an effective program in the future for conflict resolution, her experience felt very forced. She had to stick to a prompt of questions that was given to her during the circle, and noted how forced student participation – especially in this method, could make it more challenging for those who wish to share their opinion to come forward

While the program is effective in theory, the mandatory participation in discussion events suggests that while Bucknell supports freedom of expression, the university wants to control the methods in which students share their opinions. What the university might perceive as a safe and nurturing way to encourage students to share their experiences, students interpret these same efforts as limiting and rigid. The university continues to promote the program in order to “foster meaningful conversations on campus”, yet opportunities to participate in this program are few and far between. A program that intends to instruct and become a main method of constructive conversation amongst students, yet doesn’t offer multiple opportunities for students to participate in can appear to be a restriction on the student body’s ability to speak freely.

The Bucknell Forum program brings together different national public figures in order to speak to the university about different relevant cultural topics. Its 2024-2024 theme, ‘Freedom of Expression’, brought in renowned speakers and activists such as George Will, Jon A. Shields, Jodi Picoult, George M. Johnson, and Jane Fonda to speak about pressing issues regarding the topic. In correspondence with Heather Johns, the VP of Marketing and Communications for Bucknell, also in charge of curating the Forum program, she stated that selection is based on speakers “multidisciplinary and diverse viewpoints”. Utilizing a large task force of undisclosed students, faculty, and staff in order to search for relevant perspectives,”, according to Johns.“The Bucknell Forum is a public demonstration that the University welcomes a variety of ideas and voices that advance our mission of imbuing in students a deep understanding of many cultures and perspectives”.

In terms of the program, particularly the theme of free speech, Johns believes “The Bucknel Forum puts forward a variety of speakers who help to advance important national conversations as we educate students for a lifetime of critical thinking and leadership”. While these are admirable goals, they don’t specifically address the concept of free speech. While there is no denying critical thinking as a valuable skill, a failure to mention students exercising their right to free expression suggests that this is not a university goal.

Paige Gilmartin, a junior literary studies major at Bucknell, felt that the speakers that were a part of that program really inspired viewers to exercise their right to free expression. Gilmartin, who attended the Jane Fonda talk last year, noted “Fonda told us a lot about her use of free speech and expression in terms of protesting for what she believed in and using her platform to advocate for change, as well as encouraging Bucknell students to do the same.” Fonda used her time at Bucknell to talk about her work as a climate change activist, and the overall importance of activism. Gilmartin noted that she believes that Bucknell does an excellent job at selecting speakers, as well as advertising it to the general community. It’s clear that there is at least some effort from the university’s end to encourage students to engage in their freedom of expression, and the diverse group of speakers does establish that Buckenll values diverse perspectives.

Where the disconnect appears is students feeling like they have an ability to speak out and advocate for their causes. Gilmartin noted that she had the opportunity to speak to Fonda in a small group after the speaker series. She mentioned that her and other students “shared that Bravaman, as well as other campus administrators attempt to inhibit free speech on campus, specifically in regards to sexual assault and Palestine protests.” Despite Bucknell University administration providing access to free speech programs, students are still feeling that their access to exercise free speech is extremely limited, particularly when it comes to certain controversial topics.

The disconnect that students are feeling appears to be coming from Buckenll’s attempts to remain to “always stay neutral on issues”, as phrased by Liv King ‘27. The programming created by the university, which ultimately makes students feel limited, has blatantly resulted from that attempt to maintain constant neutrality. Under the guise of “developing critical thinking skills”, the university has developed programs that prevent students from advocating for causes in ways that would be “too controversial” by university standards.

Presently, the state of free speech at Bucknell is confusing. While there are programs in existence and in development to encourage freedom of expression and critical thinking, these programs become some of the only ways for students to engage with free speech on campus. This creates an environment where student engagement with free speech and activism are conditional on participating in what the university deems appropriate. Contingency is not a word that typically is associated with the right to freedom of expression. Bucknell University has done great work to support developing critical thinking and open discourse at Bucknell, but its seemingly lack of student participation and approval suggests new methods on supporting these skills. A better understanding of students’ desire for activism and socio-political engagement might encourage more student participation.

Are Student Voices in Harmony with Bucknell Branding?

By Liana Schilling

During the great migration of students walking through the quad toward their next class, a flash of light redirects the attention of a smiling group of students. The campus photographer lowers the camera and admires the photo that perfectly frames the students’ moods. Months later, the photo appears on the covers of the Bucknell University Instagram page, along with a thoroughly designed caption that reflects the subjects’ expressions, broadcasting the wonderful time Bucknellians are having on a seemingly regular weekday.

Bucknell University, the academic institution, is fundamentally different from Bucknell University, the brand. As one of 5,916 colleges in the United States, the competition for student enrollment is intense (edsmart.org). All academic institutions understand that to maintain their stances as more than eligible contenders, the schools must highlight their attributes and conceal any areas of weakness. How authentic is this playing field to students’ experiences?

Bucknell University has a following of about 34,000 on its official Instagram (@bucknellu). Images of smiling faces of students attending events, petting therapy dogs, and diligently working on homework on the well-watered quad are central to the page’s feed. The Bucknell Marketing and Communications department’s efforts to create a highly desirable social media feed that aligns with Bucknell’s brand image are highly recognizable.

Heather Johns, the Vice President of Marketing and Communications at Bucknell defines Bucknell’s brand image as being “..built on academic excellence, an innovative and personalized liberal arts education, strong faculty-student relationships, and a dynamic campus community”. When analyzing the content on Bucknell’s social media feed, there is no doubt this image is filtered over every image presented. She states that “the Marketing & Communications team upholds this identity by ensuring that all public-facing content — including digital marketing, print materials, video storytelling, and media outreach — aligns with Bucknell’s core values and distinctive qualities”. In the scope of marketing, this is not a novel concept. A strong brand identity is formulated by consistently promoting content that emulates the attributes that are intended to become affiliated with the identity of the brand. The point at which this need to push a certain marketing agenda interferes with an authentic Bucknellian experience is when integrity becomes lost in the game of enrollment.

In 2013, the matter of institutional integrity was brought to light as the President of Bucknell University addressed a letter to the board of trustees informing them that the school had misreported SAT scores from 2006 to 2013. These scores, in turn, were reported to U.S. News and World Report, making Bucknell’s ranking amongst other organizations incorrect (Bravman, 2013). This was not a direct ploy from the marketing and communications department to corroborate Bucknell’s academic excellence messaging but the message of temptation to promote a certain image at the expense of students’ and families’ trust is highlighted in this footnote of Bucknell’s history.

A problem arises when the desire to enforce a certain image compromises students’ perception of the school’s support and leads to a certain distrust of the administration. This distrust is also a product of an unwillingness to support student initiatives and wishes. Ryan Ziskin, an Orientation Leader and Admissions ambassador, as well as an overall sufficiently involved member on campus, expressed his disappointment with the administration’s motivation to work with students on initiatives that have been expressed as crucial to their impact on campus. “Administration is very anti-change. The counseling center has a lot of issues with being understaffed but the administration isn’t doing much. You have to fight them from every inch of ground you can gain for the students”. This disappointment stems from other areas where Ziskin feels the administration’s priorities lie more in the Bucknell Branding than working on curating a more inclusive student experience. Regarding Bucknell’s social media outlet, he states that he understands the profile to depict Bucknell “…really inaccurately. They pick and choose what to show. They pretend we’re now a PWI [Primarily White Institution], when we’re clearly a PWI. When I’ve worked for orientation the photographers go up to the people of color. They also use a lot of old photos and pretend like they’re current.”

Maria Ruccolo, an active student at Bucknell engaged in many executive positions of student organizations and Greek life on campus states that she would agree that “..Bucknell sometimes singles out members of diverse communities to push the diversity, equity, and inclusion aspect. However, I feel the school generally does care about the matter and making the school an inclusive place for everyone.” Although students have mixed opinions regarding the integrity of Bucknell’s efforts to promote as well as market an inclusive campus, they can agree that there is a discrepancy between the enforced public image of diversity at Bucknell and the reality.

A bridge between the marketized version of Bucknell and the version that current enrolled students face every day can be found at the Instagram handle @IamRayBucknell. It is a platform designed for students to share what they love about Bucknell and advocate for the school on their behalf. Prospective and current students, like Ruccolo, believe that the platform “…does a pretty good job at representing the Bucknell community. It’s so unfiltered and lets students show their experiences.” As a marketing and communications professional at Bucknell, Johns explains the role of the account “ …is designed to amplify student voices, allowing them to share their personal journeys, academic passions, and campus experiences in their own words… [it] provides an authentic glimpse into student life, featuring diverse perspectives that highlight the impact of a Bucknell education beyond the classroom”.

In theory, the platform is very resourceful for prospective students looking to resonate with someone’s story to make an informative decision about where to spend the next four years of their lives. What is not as obvious from a viewer’s perspective is that behind the seemingly candid profile, a selection process occurs before any posts can be made. A student who expresses interest in posting on the account must answer “What would make your week as Ray Bucknell so awesome?” in a Google form before any further progress can be made toward sharing personal experiences. This eliminates the true “authentic glimpse” that is implied by the account, over-saturating the account with only positive experiences that can be misleading to prospective students.

The role of an effective university marketing department is to convince prospective students and their families of the value of the University and what experiences will be practically guaranteed with the cost of tuition. This is not foreign to any educational institution’s marketing strategy, and will not become unusual due to its significance in the college selection process and the competition between the schools. The issue arises when there is an imbalance between maintaining a positive image and the transparency of student voices. When students feel that what is presented is not necessarily truthful, they lose trust in their own administration’s support of their opinions and feel that they cannot fully express the extent of their opinions regarding their academic experience. When the camera flashes only in one direction, it eclipses what’s behind it, leaving the rest of reality in the dark.

Anna’s Article Here

Free speech: what The debatable issues may emerge at Bucknell University when the US senator makes his visit to the campus

By Younis Alhallaq

On April 22, Bucknell University students will filter into the Elaine Langone Center, some eager, others skeptical, as U.S. Senator Rand Paul steps onto the stage. His arrival is already sparking conversations in classrooms, dining halls, and dormitories, with some students curious about his viewpoints and others questioning why he was invited. The anticipation lingers in the air, much like the tension that has accompanied his past appearances at college campuses across America.

Just last August, Paul’s speech at Kentucky Wesleyan University stirred controversy after he voiced strong opposition to COVID-19 pandemic precautions, prompting College President James Cousins to issue an apology to the campus community. His visit to Bucknell comes with similar expectations—will his words ignite meaningful discussion, or will they further entrench political divides?

As the auditorium fills, there is an unspoken divide in the room—those who support Paul’s libertarian stances, those who vehemently oppose them, and those simply there to witness the spectacle. Whispers of past controversies circulate, from his criticism of U.S. foreign interventions to his outspoken stance on free speech, criminal justice, and government overreach.

As the campus braces for his arrival, the question isn’t just what he’ll say—it’s how Bucknell students and faculty will respond. Will this be a moment of productive debate, where students

engage in meaningful discourse? Or will it become just another political event where lines are drawn but few minds are changed?

Bucknell’s Free Speech Culture: Open Dialogue or Controlled Discourse? Bucknell University presents itself as an institution that values open dialogue and freedom of expression. However, there are concerns that controversial discussions are often controlled or moderated in a way that prevents true, unfiltered debate. As Bucknell prepares to host U.S. Senator Rand Paul, the event will test the university’s commitment to genuine free speech on campus.

Professor Kelly Stedem, a professor in international relations at Bucknell, noted, “Students on this campus are incredibly polite and do not try to rock the boat… I don’t think that they’re gonna stand up and yell at him. To be frank.” This raises a crucial question: Will Paul’s speech lead to real engagement, or will it be another structured discussion that avoids difficult conversations? Foreign Policy: The Ukraine-Russia Debate and U.S. Intervention, and other polices

Rand Paul’s foreign policy stance has been one of his most debated positions, particularly regarding the Ukraine-Russia war. While many U.S. lawmakers advocate for increased military aid to Ukraine, Paul has been a vocal critic of sending American taxpayer money to fund foreign conflicts. Recently, Paul argued that continued military assistance to Ukraine risks escalating tensions with Russia and places a financial burden on the United States. “We are $34 trillion in debt. We don’t have the money to continue this war,” Paul stated in an interview earlier this year, emphasizing his belief that the U.S. should prioritize domestic interests over foreign interventions.

At Bucknell, Professor Stedem explained how Paul’s stance differs from that of his father, Ron Paul, saying, “He doesn’t have the same attitude as his father… He often argues that intervention and projection of American power abroad are sometimes necessary.”

Paul’s views on Israel and Gaza have also sparked controversy. “If you had students who are very supportive of Israel, they would be critical of him… If you’re a student sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, you’d also be critical of him,” Stedem noted. His contradictory approach—verbally supporting Israel’s leadership while advocating for cutting aid—has frustrated both sides.

Despite these strong views, Bucknell students tend to avoid public debates on foreign policy, with Malika Alika, a student at Bucknell, explaining, “I don’t think that his presence alone is gonna spark any sort of large-scale student activism unless something controversial happens.”

COVID-19: Public Health vs. Personal Freedom

One of Rand Paul’s most controversial stances has been his opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.

His position contrasts sharply with those of public health officials and university faculty members who saw restrictions as necessary.

Professor Gates, a Bucknell biology professor, defended the restrictions, stating, “It was necessary… or we would have had even more people dying.” She argued that lockdowns were the best option to protect those who were most vulnerable, especially at a time when asymptomatic transmission made it difficult to isolate only those who were sick. However, Paul’s perspective reflects a libertarian approach to personal freedoms, arguing that individuals—not the government—should decide their health precautions. This debate raises the larger issue of how Bucknell handles discourse on public health and personal freedom.

Edward Snowden and National Security

Discussions around national security and free speech often return to the case of Edward Snowden, who leaked classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs. His actions continue to spark debate about government transparency versus national security risks.

Professor Stedem provided insight into Snowden’s actions, stating, “He knew that what he was doing was illegal… but he argued that it was a moral necessity because the U.S. government was lying to the American people.”

At Bucknell, awareness of Snowden’s case is low, with Stedem noting, “Most students don’t know who he is… I’ve talked about him in multiple classrooms, and the majority of students have no idea.” This raises concerns about how much students engage with broader national debates on government secrecy and free speech.

Criminal Justice and Political Divides

While Rand Paul has spoken about criminal justice reform, there has been little discussion at Bucknell about this aspect of his platform. His advocacy for ending mandatory minimum sentences and prison reform aligns with some progressive policies, yet his broader conservative stance on law and order remains divisive. One professor noted that Bucknell students tend to focus more on campus-specific issues rather than national political debates. This may explain why Paul’s stance on criminal justice has not sparked significant controversy at Bucknell, despite it being a central part of his platform.

To conclude, Rand Paul’s visit serves as a test for Bucknell’s free speech culture. Will students and faculty engage in genuine debate, or will discussions remain carefully moderated?

Professor Stedem concluded, “I don’t anticipate everyone will agree with him… but I expect this will be a productive engagement.” However, if Bucknell’s past events are any indication, students may feel reluctant to publicly challenge Paul’s positions, leaving free speech at Bucknell as a carefully controlled, rather than fully open, discourse.

Free Speech in Crisis: Bucknell’s Struggle Between Principles and Practice During Campus Protests

By Beatrice Rakowsky

The polite facade of campus discourse crumbled when protesters stormed a presidential forum, filling Trout auditorium with the sounds of passionate chants demanding the university address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When protest movements erupted on college campuses in the wake of the October 7th attack on Israel, Bucknell University found itself navigating the gap between its stated free expression principles and their practical application. Despite it’s stated commitments to protect students’ right to free expression, the university’s response to pro-Palestinian liberation demonstrations revealed the complexities and contradictions in how these policies operate in real scenarios.

Bucknell’s official policy, as seen on their website, champions free expression as essential to its mission of educating students for “critical thinking and strong leadership.” The university explicitly states it “supports the rights of students and student organizations to… support causes by orderly means.”

Yet, pro-Palestinian liberation student activist Gabby Diaz describes a different reality. “Bucknell doesn’t like anything that might be bad press,” she stated, noting that the university “does engage in surveillance tactics and tries to hush students to avoid disrupting campus culture.” This disconnect creates uncertainty regarding Bucknell’s true stance on free expression within the realm of controversial political speech.

The tension between policy and practice came into sharp focus during a forum called “A Night with the Presidents.” While President John Bravman and Bucknell Student Government former-president Sam Douds were holding a discussion forum about campus life, students staged a protest, entering the auditorium to demand University action regarding the situation in Gaza. The pro-Palestinian liberation group started chanting and calling for the University to respond to the conflict and sever ties with organizations that support Israel. Jewish student Molly Malaby described President Bravman’s reaction: “He politely ended the conversation and left. As he was leaving, he explained that while the students have a right to freedom of speech, the time and place in which they did so was completely inappropriate.” She added that “a ruckus was caused as pro-Palestine protesters took to social media to rip apart both the President of the school and the president of the class. Neither of the two said one word about their beliefs, yet they were being scrutinized for calling off the event after being interrupted by screams.”

Miranda Neusner, another Jewish student, shared her apprehension about campus protests spreading to Bucknell: “After watching videos [from other universities] of Jewish students and professors being harassed and blockaded from academic buildings, locked inside their kosher dining halls and libraries for their own safety, and targeted with online threats in campus forums, I was certainly hesitant to see this wave of protest at Bucknell.”

Bucknell’s guidelines establish “time, place, and manner” requirements for expressive activity, including that protests may not create “a volume of noise that prevents members of the University community from carrying on their normal activities.” While this incident may have violated these guidelines, it demonstrates how these content-neutral regulations can function to contain politically contentious speech.

Bucknell’s policy also explicitly prohibits affixing written materials to university facilities and restricts chalking to designated areas. Diaz reported that activists experienced the washing away of their chalk messages as well as the tearing down of their posters and flyers around campus. Malaby described seeing “messages written across campus about Gaza and the watermelon posters hanging in the bathrooms of academic buildings.” She noted, “These acts were done in the middle of the night, and the campus woke up to them.” The overnight timing of these displays suggests that these student activists anticipated resistance to their expression, and believed that they needed to find a workaround to policies that might otherwise limit their visibility.

Beyond formal restrictions, Bucknell’s campus climate significantly impacts free expression. When asked if she felt comfortable expressing her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Malaby simply answered, “No.” Neusner expressed similar hesitation, saying that “Given the nature of our small, close-knit school, many students are less vocal about politics because you don’t really know what to expect from the views of the person you’re talking to.” Meanwhile, Diaz characterizes Bucknell as “a relatively silent campus whenever global issues unfold,” suggesting a culture that discourages political discourse. She criticizes what she calls the “Bucknell Bubble,” a campus mindset that allows students to “free ourselves from any kind of responsibility or empathy towards real issues that are affecting students on campus.” This environment contradicts Bucknell’s stated commitment to fostering an “environment that prioritizes the open exchange of ideas and debate.”

Suzanne Trimel, a representative from PEN America, a leading free speech organization, warns against “over restrictive time, place, and manner policies” that can lead to “over policing of speech content.” She notes that universities also face an “unusual added pressure from external groups like alumni, donors, politicians, and advocacy groups” to take stances regarding the Israel-Palestine demonstrations, and even to punish student activists. While Diaz characterizes the administration’s approach as “vanilla” compared to other universities, she suggests that the relatively mild response stems from the limited scale of Bucknell’s protests: “Our administration is honestly a lot less harsh than other schools and a large part of that is because as activists, we haven’t actually done anything that crazy.” Her statement raises the question of how the university might respond to more disruptive forms of protest, like the encampments seen at other institutions, and whether its commitment to free expression would withstand stronger political pressures.

Bucknell’s experience highlights the broader ongoing struggle for American universities to uphold both community safety and the principles of free expression in the face of contentious issues. Pro-Palestinian activists see their protests as moral imperatives addressing urgent humanitarian concerns, while others view their tactics as disruptive to civil discourse. Jewish students may feel angry or uncomfortable due to the rhetoric and methods of their activist peers. Administrators often find themselves caught between supporting student expression and maintaining environments that are safe for all. Effective navigation of these tensions, according to Trimel, requires “relying on trusted messengers, transparency into decision making, invitations to institutional proceedings, and regular communication with student organizations.”

Rather than seeking a “correct” approach to campus activism, Bucknell, like all universities, might better serve its students by engaging in transparent dialogue about the boundaries of protest, and recognizing that disagreement about tactics should not lead to the dismissal of underlying concerns. The challenge is not eliminating tension but transforming it into an opportunity for the kind of nuanced learning that defines higher education.

Sources

Alexis

Jordyn Weber, Class of 2026

jrw042@bucknell.edu | (609) 455-6406

Paige Gilmartin, Class of 2026

peg009@bucknell.edu | (508) 404-7905

Olivia King, Class of 2027

ojk001@bucknell.edu | (862) 345-4675

Heather Johns, Vice President, Marketing and Communications

heather.johns@bucknell.edu | (570) 577-3884

Liana

Heather Johns– Vice President of Marketing and Communications, email: hlj003@bucknell.edu
Ryan Ziskin– email: rgz003@bucknell.edu, phone: 860-999-4163

Maria Rucculo– email: mgr015@bucknell.edu, phone: 856-630-8804