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.

Natalie

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].

Natalie

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. Scores are accurate. Questions and responses may be updated from time to time to reflect improvements to Sway.

Sophiedisagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Natalie argued.

When you first questioned restrictions on campus speakers, why did Natalie think university funding could justify limits on some invitations?

Because financial backing can make the university appear to tolerate and support the speaker's rhetoric.
Because student protests can hold organizations accountable without the university withdrawing financial support.
Because recognized student groups receive general budgets rather than money designated for particular speakers.
Because controversial invitations should first receive approval from a mixed student-faculty jury.

correct Justification

Natalie said that by "backing the student org with money" the university is "supporting their message" and showing that it "tolerates that rhetoric." The general-budget and protest arguments were raised by you, while the jury was proposed later.

In Natalie's example about the trans sports speaker, how did she balance freedom of speech against the university's responsibility to marginalized students?

She said the event should proceed because protests would sufficiently protect the affected students from its consequences.
She said the speaker need not be banned, but the university should not fund an event that harms marginalized students.
She said officials should permit the event initially and withdraw support only after direct harm could be demonstrated.
She said the small number of trans athletes made the speech a clear and present danger that could be prohibited.

correct Justification

Natalie said, "I don't necessarily think that women should have been banned from campus because freedom of speech is important," but added that "the university shouldn't be funding events that do not support their marginalized students." She did not classify the speech as a clear and present danger or argue that officials must wait for demonstrated harm.

After Guide highlighted the tension in Natalie's position, why did Natalie argue that a middle ground was necessary?

She believed offensive speech should remain protected, while only speech already prohibited outside campus should affect university funding.
She believed universities should leave speaker decisions to student organizations, while retaining authority over protests and campus facilities.
She believed universities must protect marginalized communities, while recognizing that they are currently abusing their censorship power.
She believed administrators generally protect free speech, while students and faculty are more likely to respond to political pressure.

correct Justification

Natalie directly stated, "universities need to protect marginalized communities. But, universities are currently abusing said power. I think there needs to be a middle ground." The other choices substitute positions you raised or claims she did not make.

Toward the end of the discussion, what decision-making structure did Natalie support for handling disputed speakers and enforcing its decisions?

Faculty would screen every proposed speaker, consult student government when practical, and prohibit events that opened negative campus conversations.
Specific bylaws would set initial limits, while a mixed jury would review disputed cases and use a supermajority plus escalating consequences.
Administrators would apply a broad harm standard, review each invitation, and immediately remove recognition from organizations that violated it.
Student organizations would interpret general speech rules, hold events unless harm occurred, and let the student body impose consequences through protests.

correct Justification

Natalie proposed "specific by-laws," case-by-case review by students and faculty, and later agreed that restrictions should require a "super majority decision." She also suggested warnings followed eventually by loss of funding and university status, emphasizing that punishment was "never the goal" but was needed for enforcement.

When Guide responded to your concern about prior restraint, what weakness did Guide identify in Natalie's proposed review board?

Students and faculty might prioritize donors and institutional reputation more heavily than university administrators ordinarily would.
A diverse board would still predict harm and cancel speech in advance, resembling the administrative censorship you had criticized.
The board could review controversial speakers but would lack any practical method for enforcing its decisions against student groups.
Specific bylaws would prevent the board from considering context when a speaker's rhetoric affected a marginalized community.

correct Justification

Guide asked how Natalie's board rescinding invitations before speakers arrived differed from your college's actions, since "both involve authorities deciding in advance that certain speech might harm marginalized groups." The concern was the shared structure of prior restraint, not enforcement, donor pressure, or an inability to consider context.

5 of 5 correct Next

Natalieagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Sophie argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, why was Sophie reluctant to let universities exclude every speaker whose message might harm or offend students?

She believed recognized student groups had a legal right to spend university funds without any institutional oversight.
She believed universities should evaluate speakers only after their events rather than before invitations were issued.
She believed labels such as offensive or dangerous could be applied according to viewpoint, making a fair boundary difficult to define.
She believed protests would adequately protect students from every speaker whose message could cause harm.

correct Justification

Sophie emphasized that "there are always going to be people who are offended" and contrasted clear cases such as Nazis with a pro-Palestine speaker who "may be labeled a terrorist by pro-Israeli groups." Her concern was that viewpoint-dependent labels make the boundary difficult to define.

When you argued that universities need power to protect marginalized students, how did Sophie use the experience of the SJP club to challenge your reasoning?

She argued that recognized clubs receive discretionary budgets, so their events cannot reasonably be associated with university support.
She argued that a university can avoid censorship concerns by separating club recognition decisions from decisions about funding controversial speakers.
She argued that student protests can become harmful to marginalized groups even when invited speakers themselves avoid controversial political claims.
She argued that a university can characterize disputed advocacy as harmful to a marginalized group and then use that rationale to dismantle an entire viewpoint on campus.

correct Justification

Sophie said the college claimed SJP's activities were "harming a marginalized group, Jewish students" and then "completely dismantled the group," leaving no pro-Palestine clubs. She used this example to show how protective authority can be abused against disputed political advocacy.

What limiting principle did Sophie explicitly endorse before the discussion turned to a possible review board?

A speaker could be restricted when a marginalized student group presented evidence that the event would open negative conversations.
A speaker could be restricted when a mixed group of students and faculty reached a consensus that the topic was hateful.
A speaker could be restricted when the speaker actively advocated violence, because that implicated clear and present danger rules.
A speaker could be restricted when the university concluded that protests would be insufficient to prevent harassment after the event.

correct Justification

Sophie wrote that a limit "should be imposed" when "the speaker is actively advocating violence against certain groups," linking that limit to "clear and present danger restrictions." The other standards were not the limiting principle she explicitly endorsed at that stage.

When you first proposed student and faculty review of controversial speakers, what dilemma did Sophie identify about when that review should operate?

Reviewing every speaker could ensure consistent rules, while reviewing only controversial speakers could eliminate the need for prior restraint.
Reviewing political speakers could prevent harassment, while reviewing nonpolitical speakers could make the board vulnerable to administrative pressure.
Reviewing speakers after an event could protect donors, while reviewing them beforehand could preserve student control over club budgets.
Reviewing speakers beforehand could prevent predicted harm but stifle speech, while reviewing them afterward could come too late to contain the harm.

correct Justification

Sophie asked whether the board should rescind an invitation in advance, "preventing any harm" but "possibly stifling free speech," or censor only after speech was "shown to be actively harmful," when social media could make that difficult.

Towards the end, why did Sophie come to regard a student-faculty jury as more legitimate than university administrators for reviewing especially controversial speakers?

The jury could review every invitation efficiently because recognized clubs already submit their budgets for institutional approval.
The jury would eliminate prior-restraint concerns because hearing arguments from both sides would ensure that no invitation was rescinded in advance.
The jury could apply broad restrictions consistently because faculty members would be insulated from pressure by students and outside groups.
The jury would prioritize free speech more than administrators influenced by donors, with extreme restrictions requiring broad agreement such as a supermajority.

correct Justification

Sophie said students and faculty "usually have free speech as their first priority," unlike administrators who "have to worry about" donors. She added that restrictions should occur only under "extreme circumstances" and suggested "a supermajority voting against it."

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

Regulating Student Groups & Campus Speakers

01Chat transcript

02Understanding quiz

03Post-chat survey

Up next

All the chats

The student app

The research