Student chat

Regulating Student Groups & Campus Speakers

Privacy Notice: Student names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy. The audio is AI-generated narration, not the students’ voices. Emoji reactions are illustrative. Plain transcript.

01Chat transcript

Guide

👋 Welcome, everyone!

Our topic is regulating student groups. We'll be discussing this statement:

Student groups using university funds should not be allowed to invite speakers to campus who may offend other students.

Natalie agrees with the statement.
Sophie disagrees with the statement.

My name is Guide, and I'm here to support your discussion. If you need anything, start your message with "Hey Guide" 🤓

the next day

Sophie

Hey! Why do you think student groups shouldn't be allowed to use university funds to invite speakers who may offend other students?

the next day

Natalie

Hey! If I'm being honest I think it depends on the topic. If a student organization is using university funds to invite someone to spew hateful rhetoric towards certain groups I believe it shows that the university tolerates that rhetoric. It's not the university inviting them, but by backing the student org with money they are supporting their message.

Sophie

My concern is who gets to determine who can and cannot speak on campus. There are always going to be people who are offended by someone expressing their views -- like people who are offended by critical race theory, for example. I don't think student groups should be allowed to invite speakers who are like straight up Nazis or part of the KKK, but it gets more difficult when determining things like a pro-Palestine speaker who may be labeled a terrorist by pro-Israeli groups on campus. I'm wondering what a policy would look like that could make that distinction, while allowing productive discourse to exist on campus

Guide

Sophie, you've identified a crucial challenge here. Let's dig into this: you seem to accept that some speakers should be excluded (Nazis, KKK members), but you're worried about where to draw the line.

If you're willing to exclude some speakers based on their potential to harm or offend, how is your position fundamentally different from Natalie's? You're both essentially arguing for content-based restrictions — you're just disagreeing about where the boundary should be.

What principle would you use to distinguish between a "straight up Nazi" and a pro-Palestine speaker who some might consider offensive? And who would apply that principle?

Natalie

I think ultimately that is why I said it depends on the topic. Last year [my college] hosted a speaker discussing why trans women should not be able to compete in women's sports on a collegiate level. I find this harmful because there are less than 10 trans women competing at a collegiate level across the country but that women discussing this topic opens negative conversations up around an already marginalized community on campus. I don't necessarily think that women should have been banned from campus because freedom of speech is important but the university shouldn't be funding events that do not support their marginalized students. In the end, I agree that any topic has the potential to offend anyone. But, the university has a responsibility to protect their students. If that means prohibiting hate speech or pulling funding then I believe the university should have that power.

Natalie

It is an incredibly nuanced topic but I don't believe that certain speakers, like nazis or the KKK, should be allowed to speak because it's difficult to decide the line between hateful and controversial.

Sophie

I never said that nazis or the KKK should be allowed to speak because the line is hard to define, just that the fact is that the line is hard to define. At [my college] last year, the SJP club lost registration and recognition because of their protests and there was a big controversy over a [pro-Palestine event] because people believed it was antisemitic. At a lot of colleges, clubs receive funding just by virtue of being a recognized club so it's not as if universities are specifically giving them funds to invite speakers, but more so that they're given a budget they can use at their discretion. [My college] was able to argue that the SJP's activities were harming a marginalized group, Jewish students, regardless of whether this is true or not, they completely dismantled the group and now there aren't any pro-Palestine clubs on campus. How can we ensure that universities don't abuse the power of pulling funding or prohibiting speech of student groups?

Sophie

I'll add that a limit I do think should be imposed is if the speaker is actively advocating violence against certain groups, but that would apply to speech outside of campus as well because of clear and present danger restrictions

Sophie

People are also totally free to protest a speaker, since that is also a form of expression so it's not as if groups will go completely "unpunished" for who they invite since they still have to answer to a student body

Natalie

I agree with you in that aspect. I absolutely believe that colleges are censoring too many topics right now, especially with the passing of [recent legislation in my state] and the political climate across the country. I do not believe that what happened at [your college] is okay. I honestly struggle with this because I can slightly agree with this topic because I believe that universities should have jurisdiction to protect their students but also completely agree with you. Censorship at [my college] specifically is rampant right now and I don't agree with it. I think that we honestly share a very similar opinion but I have been chosen to argue the other side.

Guide

Natalie, hold on. You just said you "completely agree" with Sophie and that you're only arguing your side because you were "chosen to argue the other side."

But look at your actual reasoning: You supported restricting the trans sports speaker because it "opens negative conversations" about a marginalized group. You said universities should "prohibit hate speech" and have the "power" to pull funding.

Those aren't throwaway positions — they reflect real values about campus speech. What do you actually believe? Because your [earlier] example suggests you think universities do abuse censorship powers, yet you also want to give them more of that same power.

Natalie

I'm not trying to throw in the towel here. Like I said, I think that universities need to protect marginalized communities. But, universities are currently abusing said power. I think there needs to be a middle ground.

Natalie

Possibly a jury of both student (possibly student government) and faculty of different opinions to come up with a consensus that represents a universities student body well.

Sophie

Yeah I do think that it's hard to figure out because a lot of speech that occurs on campus are going to be things that I personally disagree with. Like your example with trans athletes, I absolutely think its unfair for a speaker to be attacking "biological men in women's sports" when there are like only 10 trans collegiate athletes so it seems pretty personal and could incite harassment. I'm interested in your idea of student government and faculty deciding on matters of speech but then I'm concerned about prior restraint... like should they decide whether to rescind an invitation due to the politics of the speaker thus preventing any harm from occurring as a result of their speech but possibly stifling free speech? Or do they censor speech after it's been shown to be actively harmful despite it being hard to do so due to social media and things like that.

Natalie

I haven't fully fledged out the idea but I was thinking like an initial set of specific by-laws that clearly outline who is not allowed. They would have to be very specific though so they couldn't be misconstrued like the [situation at your college]. Outside of that, I believe that it would be a case by case basis, if concerns had been raised about a specific speaker. The board would then hopefully review the speaker before they came to campus and rescind their invitation if needed. In an ideal world all speakers could be looked at, but at campuses like [my college's] I think that would be a very large task. The goal of the board would be to ensure that free speech is upheld while also protecting students. Like if the recent chalking ban would have been discussed, the hope is that the board would see that chalking isn't inherently bad and that people using it for hate speech should be punished, not anyone who is chalking for fun.

Guide

Sophie, you've hit on something crucial here. You're worried about prior restraint — essentially censoring speech before it happens based on predictions about harm.

But consider this: if Natalie's review board can rescind invitations before speakers arrive, how is that different from the situation you criticized [at your college]? Both involve authorities deciding in advance that certain speech might harm marginalized groups.

What makes prior restraint by a "diverse board" more legitimate than prior restraint by university administrators?

Natalie

It is definitely a complex question. And even this hypothetical board has potential to be corrupt. I just don't know if I think that universities allowing anyone and everyone to speak on campus should be the solution. I don't know what a perfect solution would be.

Sophie

I guess everything has potential to be corrupt. Maybe it could almost be like a jury? For cases where there are concerns raised about a speaker, a jury of students and faculty could review the case, hear arguments from both sides, before coming to a consensus. But you're right in that I don't think they could do it for every single speaker, but perhaps just the really controversial ones.

Sophie

To answer guide's question, I think a diverse board would be more legitimate than university administrators because students and faculty usually have free speech as their first priority, not donors and things like that which admin have to worry about. The board would likely only restrict speakers under extreme circumstances though... perhaps would need to be a supermajority voting against it?

Natalie

Yeah, that is very much in line with what I was thinking. I also agree that it would have to be a super majority decision, the point of the jury is to speak for the student body, so it would need to majority decision. I wonder if the jury could work to also come up with consequences for student organizations if they do not follow the procedures. The jury could issue warnings, and the end result is to remove funding and university status from the orgs. In my opinion, the previously mentioned punishment is never the goal, but the board would need a way to enforce its decisions.👍

02Understanding quiz

Sway asks each student five questions about what their partner argued. These are the answers they gave.

Sophiedisagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Natalie argued.

At the start of the discussion, Natalie argues that student organizations using university funds should not invite speakers who espouse hateful rhetoric because:

By financially supporting the event, the university appears to endorse the speaker's message.
It makes it difficult for those students to hear differing opinions.
Student groups should not have freedom to spend budgets as they please.
Universities lack resources to monitor offensive speech.

correct

How does Natalie justify restricting funding for the speaker on trans women competing in women's sports?

Because it would conflict with state legislation on sports eligibility.
Because it "opens negative conversations" about an already marginalized community.
Because freedom of speech is unimportant when small groups are involved.
Because colleges need to comply with hate speech statutes.

correct

Why does Natalie propose creating a jury composed of students and faculty to evaluate controversial speakers?

To reduce the administrative burden entirely.
To reach a consensus that authentically represents the university's student body and protect free speech while guarding against...
To grant speakers unrestricted access unless explicitly banned.
To delegate all speaker decisions to external donors.

correct

Over the course of the discussion, how does Natalie's view on who should decide speaker invitations evolve?

She moves from requiring only state legislation to recommending university administrators hold all authority.
She shifts from opposing any speech restrictions to endorsing unconditional funding for all student groups.
She abandons protecting marginalized communities in favor of pure free speech absolutism.
She refines her view from giving administrators unilateral power to advocating a diverse board with specific by-laws and a supermajority voting...

correct

What was the primary purpose of Guide's challenge when asking Natalie, "What do you actually believe?"

To prompt Natalie to suggest a model policy for speech regulations.
To encourage Natalie to consider student protests as an alternative.
To highlight inconsistencies in her stance between supporting censorship powers and criticizing censorship abuse.
To redirect the discussion toward hiring practices at universities.

correct

5 of 5 correct Next

Natalieagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Sophie argued.

Which example did Sophie cite to illustrate how universities might abuse their power by deregistering student groups and banning events?

A chalking ban controversy at her college
The removal of SJP recognition at her college over a pro-Palestine event
The chalk ban being overly broad on campus sidewalks
A KKK rally being disallowed by administrators

correct

What governance mechanism did Sophie propose for deciding on controversial speaker invitations?

A jury of students and faculty that hears arguments and votes by supermajority
Decisions by university administrators based on donor interests
Automatic approval if no group protests
A panel of external legal experts

correct

How does Sophie justify that a diverse board would be more legitimate than decisions made by university administrators?

Board members prioritize free speech and are not influenced by donors
Administrators have more experience with funding issues
Students and faculty are less informed about politics
Administrators ensure balanced donor interests

correct

What concern did Guide raise about Sophie's suggested prior restraint by a review board?

That it could be more restrictive than existing admin policies
How it differs from the situation they criticized at Sophie's college
Its potential to overfund student organizations
Its impact on noisy campus protests

correct

Which type of speech restriction did Sophie explicitly support as appropriate?

Restricting any speaker who might offend someone
Banning any controversial topic from campus
Limiting speakers who actively advocate violence based on clear and present danger
Allowing speakers only if no group votes against them

correct

5 of 5 correct Next

03Post-chat survey

Last, both students rate the statement again and then rate a randomly sampled subset of our post-chat survey items. Like their transcripts, individual student opinions are never revealed to instructors.

Sophiedisagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

Student groups using university funds should not be allowed to invite speakers to campus who may offend other students.

Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Guide supported both sides of the discussion equally
I felt comfortable sharing my honest opinions with my partner
I was not offended by my partner's perspective
My partner was respectful
My partner had better reasons for their views than I expected
It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective

Submit

Natalieagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

Student groups using university funds should not be allowed to invite speakers to campus who may offend other students.

Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Guide's contributions improved the discussion
Guide supported both sides of the discussion equally
My partner was respectful
My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective
It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective
Sway helped me articulate my thoughts/feelings better

Submit

Opinion change

Sophiedisagrees

—

Natalieagrees

-2

before the chat after the chat both, unchanged Seven points, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Both students rated the statement before the chat and again after the quiz.

Regulating Student Groups & Campus Speakers

01Chat transcript

02Understanding quiz

03Post-chat survey

Up next

All the chats

The student app

The research