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 on November 7th, 2023, filling Trout auditorium with the sounds of passionate chants demanding the University address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “You’re just proving our point!” student activists yelled as Bucknell President Bravman walked out, according to Malika Ali, a student present at the protest.
At Bucknell University, a troubling paradox has emerged: despite official policies championing free expression, students on all sides of political issues, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, report feeling unable to speak openly about their views. This reluctance to engage in open discourse reveals the gap between Bucknell’s stated principles and the lived experience of its community members. Pro-Palestinian activist Gabby Diaz characterizes Bucknell as “It’s a relatively silent campus whenever global issues unfold,” she observes, with a hint of frustration in her voice. 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.” Jewish student Molly Malaby, when asked if she feels comfortable expressing her views on campus, answers with a flat “No.” Miranda Neusner, another Jewish student, expresses a similar hesitation: “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.”
This climate of self-censorship directly contradicts Bucknell’s official policy, which 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 says, describing how the University responds to controversial expression. She notes that while there aren’t “explicit attempts” to limit freedom of expression, the University “does engage in surveillance tactics and tries to hush students to avoid disrupting campus culture.” These surveillance tactics, according to Diaz, include overnight removal of posters and selective enforcement of chalking policies. This disconnect creates uncertainty regarding Bucknell’s true stance on free expression within the realm of controversial political speech.
For Jewish students like Hayley Leopold, the campus climate grew increasingly tense as pro-Palestinian protests across the country intensified. “At the time,” she recalled, her voice softening slightly, “I remember feeling uncomfortable walking around campus wearing my Star of David necklace. I had even received a few Instagram DM messages that were accusing me of supporting a Palestinian genocide after I reposted an Instagram story from Chabad.”
Neusner 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.”
The growing unease on campus took a frightening turn when an act of blatant antisemitism occurred on campus. Leopold recounts the chilling discovery: “Someone broke into a Chabad member’s room and put a Post-It note with a swastika drawn on it inside his refrigerator. My Jewish friends and I,” Leopold explained, her words carrying the weight of shared vulnerability, “felt very nervous that these sorts of antisemitic behaviors would continue across campus.”
These tensions came into sharp focus during a forum called “A Night with the Presidents.” While President John Bravman and Bucknell Student Government president at the time, Sam Douds, were holding a discussion forum about campus life, students staged a protest, entering the auditorium to demand University action regarding the war 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.”
President Bravman’s reaction to the direct protest reveals the university’s stance on the time and place of demonstrations. However, student activists also employ other means to voice their concerns, navigating the university’s established rules regarding expression. Bucknell’s policy explicitly prohibits affixing written materials to University facilities and restricts chalking to designated areas. Diaz reports that activists experienced the washing away of their chalk messages as well as the tearing down of their posters and flyers around campus. Malaby recalled seeing “messages written across campus about Gaza and the watermelon posters hanging in the bathrooms of academic buildings.” These watermelon images, displaying the red, green, and black colors of the Palestinian flag, have become a widely recognized symbol of Palestinian solidarity. 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.
This kind of restrictive approach to student expression is precisely what concerns free speech advocates like Suzanne Trimel from PEN America, a leading free speech organization. Trimel warns against “over restrictive time, place, and manner policies” that can lead to “over policing of speech content.” Regarding policies like Bucknell’s restrictions on chalking and poster placement, Trimel notes that while private institutions like Bucknell “may set their own restrictions on speech and expression and are not legally required to follow the First Amendment,” PEN America “advocates that private campuses adopt speech and expression policies modeled after the First Amendment for the most robust expression protections. This helps prevent overly restrictive content based policy making.”
When asked about the administration’s handling of on-campus protests, Leopold offers an opinion: “I think the University administration probably did the best they could to respond to protests. It would have been nice if the students who protested with signs that were indirectly targeted at Jewish students got into some sort of trouble, but I understand how these signs could have been interpreted differently.”
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.
Trimel suggests that successful strategies for facilitating dialogue include “relying on trusted messengers, transparency into decision making, invitations to institutional proceedings, and regular communication with student organizations.” She notes that some schools have chosen to “host facilitated discussions that modeled respectful discourse about the issue, interfaith and intercultural dialogue initiatives, cross-collaboration across student groups” and supporting students with mental health resources. While Bucknell has employed many of these strategies, it is clear that many students still feel that more is needed.
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 like Diaz see their protests as moral imperatives addressing urgent humanitarian concerns. For Diaz and her fellow activists, these concerns center on the displacement of Palestinians and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Their protests, in their view, are a direct response to what they see as the University’s complicity, through its ties, in a situation demanding urgent moral action. Diaz offers a perspective on activism, stating, “If there’s no backlash when you’re doing activism, you’re probably doing something wrong,” while also expressing hope: “I like to think there is still some good in humanity, so I pay attention to that.” In contrast to the pro-Palestinian activists who feel compelled to voice their concerns, Jewish students like Leopold describe a campus climate where expressing their perspectives can lead to feelings of unease. Interestingly, these protests, while causing anxiety for some Jewish students, have also fostered a stronger sense of community among them. As Malaby notes, “Since these protests, Jewish students and faculty have come together. I have found myself connecting with my fellow Jewish students more often outside of the classroom. It is comfortable to be surrounded by individuals who share your values and beliefs.” Amid these contrasting experiences, the need for a thoughtful and respectful approach to these issues becomes paramount. Neusner provides a valuable insight in this regard: “Bucknell students have treated this situation with respect,” emphasizing the emotionally charged nature of the conflict: “In principle, the Israel-Hamas War has been a watershed moment in global history, but it comes amid a decades-long, nuanced geopolitical conflict. There are strong emotions involved, and a sort of tension that has risen and fallen for several years. When approaching a protest about a geopolitical conflict—one where ethnic and religious identities are inextricably linked to land—it’s important to be conscientious and respectful.” As the echoes of protest and the anxieties of students linger in the air, Neusner’s words serve as a poignant reminder: this isn’t just about protests and policies, but about the respect needed when dealing with conflicts that touch the core of people’s identities.
Contacts
Gabby Diaz, Class of 2025
gjd011@bucknell.edu | 240-467-4726
Hayley Leopold, Class of 2026
hbl009@bucknell.edu | 201-543-4681
Malika Ali, Class of 2026
mna008@bucknell.edu | 732-913-9000
Miranda Neusner, Class of 2025
man020@bucknell.edu | 301-875-9457
Molly Malaby, Class of 2025
mrm037@bucknell.edu | 347-835-2734
Suzanne Trimel, PEN America
STrimel@pen.org | 201-247-5057