Gina Casalegno on Carnegie Mellon University's Expressive Activities Policy

College campuses have long served as incubators for social movements and protests, championing civil rights, free speech and numerous other causes. However, recent policies on student protests have sparked debate on various campuses, including Carnegie Mellon University. At CMU, a new policy mandates that "expressive activities" involving over 25 people must be registered in advance. This policy has generated considerable discussion among students, faculty and staff, who hold diverse views on its implications for campus freedom of expression.

To gain insight into the intent behind this policy and the university administration’s stance, I spoke with Gina Casalegno, vice president for student affairs and dean of students.  According to Casalegno, at its core, the policy centers around three main goals: protecting free expression, ensuring safety and maintaining university operations.

"We absolutely protect free expression, welcome it, invite it," Casalegno said, emphasizing that the university's role includes creating an environment where expression can "be said and heard." Yet, balancing safety remains essential. To address potential risks, the university uses expressive activity support teams and may engage campus police as a secondary measure. These layers of support stem from incidents at other campuses where protests have escalated, as the administrator noted, "look at what happened at UCLA, for example." In UCLA, individuals set up an encampment on campus to protest the university's investments in companies doing business with Israel. However, tensions rose as pro-Israel counter-protesters clashed with the demonstrators, leading to violent confrontations. This further escalated to a severe incident when pro-Israel supporters attacked the encampment, requiring intervention from the Los Angeles Police Department to restore order.

“This isn't an approval process of speech. It is a registration process so that we’re aware."

Despite the intentions to avoid a similar predicament, a disconnect persists among students, staff and faculty regarding the purpose and application of the expressive activity registration policy. While the administration claims to prioritize safety, some students worry that requiring protest registration could suppress certain activities or give the administration undue power over students’ first amendment rights. According to Casalegno, this registration requirement is not intended to "reject based on the content of speech" but rather to prepare adequate safety measures. She pointed out, "We don't ask, what's the content of your speech? So we won't reject based on the content." The intent to remain content-neutral is central to the policy, yet students’ concerns reflect a broader cultural context where freedom of expression on campuses is highly scrutinized.

Many are wary that registration might chill free speech or be perceived as a bureaucratic hurdle. As Casalegno shared, the university has not shut anything down yet. Even when gatherings lack official sponsors, the administration’s goal is to monitor the event, not to shut it down. By being “aware of things happening locally,” they aim to prepare for potential conflicts, not to dictate speech or limit viewpoints. 

Ultimately, the administration's goal is to create a transparent process that allows students, faculty and staff to voice their perspectives in a safe, structured manner. As Casalegno explained, the university’s role isn’t to act as a political figure or take sides in international conflicts, but to support students from diverse backgrounds, especially during polarizing events.

This policy, however, is sometimes viewed as an attempt to regulate or even suppress particular viewpoints. In response to these concerns, Casalegno emphasized that the university takes a content-neutral approach, saying, "It's our role to support all students." The administration emphasizes its commitment to all students, including Jewish and Muslim communities, and provides resources like safe spaces and educational workshops to foster understanding.

Administrators recognize the importance of transparency and outreach. They’re currently exploring methods beyond email communication, such as hosting small-group discussions and offering forums in student governance settings to better communicate with students. These initiatives aim to build trust and clarify the intent behind expressive activity policies. By creating open, honest conversations, the university seeks to foster a supportive environment where all students can feel heard, especially amid the complex landscape of political expression on campus.

According to Casalegno, building trust remains an essential goal for the administration, who recognize that without a foundation of trust, any policy might easily be viewed with skepticism by the campus community. She acknowledges that maintaining transparency and communicating their intentions clearly is a way to counter potential misunderstandings.

There have also been positive reactions to the policy from the campus community. Casalegno shared, “I've heard from a number of students who've said, this at least helps me feel like there's some … sort of rationality and order to things.”

Overall, this push for order has been met with mixed reactions, especially among students who perceive this structure as a form of implicit censorship. For some students, the concern is not merely about understanding the policy but about the potential impact on their freedom to express dissenting views. Students have voiced fears that the policy could create a “chilling effect,” where they might hesitate to speak out on polarizing topics due to concerns about administrative response. As the administrator admitted, they have received feedback from students who worry that the policy might empower the university to “shut something down.”

The policy’s implications bring up larger questions about institutional authority. Students ask who holds the ultimate control over which activities are permitted, leading to apprehension that the university could suppress views or gatherings deemed too contentious. These concerns echo a broader national discourse about campus policies and whether they serve as protective measures or veiled mechanisms for control. As the university continues to refine their approach to expressive activities on campus, they actively seek feedback to ensure policies align with both university values and student expectations.  As students continue to probe the potential limits of their freedoms, it remains clear that the balance between free expression and regulation on campus is an evolving and sometimes contentious process.

The Legacy of Free Speech Movements

An Op-Ed on the Impact of College Campuses as a Key Driver of Political Change

By Amanawit Assefa

In the United States, free speech is  a cornerstone of democracy, enshrined in the very fabric of its history and success. This principle has helped to shape the nation's unique identity, allowing people to express themselves without fear of repression or censure. Within this tradition, the role of civil discourse emerges as a crucial element, especially on college campuses, where the practice of sharing diverse perspectives has long been valued. In today's polarized climate, with the weight of global conflicts and the intensity of an election season, free speech and civil discourse on campus are more essential than ever.

Historically, college campuses have served as spaces for open dialogue, providing a platform where students, faculty and staff can voice diverse opinions and grapple with contentious issues. From civil rights protests to debates over U.S. foreign policy, campus activism has often shaped national discourse, challenging societal norms and sparking vital change. Some of the most significant times of college activism have been the Vietnam war protests, Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Apartheid Movement. Although these spaces have a powerful history, today campuses are the center of a debate over the boundaries of acceptable speech. Should there be limits on speech deemed offensive, or does restricting speech, even when it's uncomfortable, undermine the very principles that define American freedom?

For this writer, the answer is clear: limiting speech, even when offensive, risks violating the core American ideal of free speech for all. True freedom of speech creates a space where people can express beliefs, ideas and identities no matter how controversial. It invites a diversity of ideas where students and faculty can engage in discussions, learning not only about others' views but also refining and strengthening their own beliefs. Civil discourse, then, does not require silencing dissent; rather, it calls for respectful engagement with those holding opposing views.

Free speech on college campuses is also an invaluable tool for exploring and understanding perspectives that may be otherwise labeled as “wrong” or “unpopular.” If the concept of free speech were only celebrated for widely accepted ideas, its significance would be diminished. The essence of free speech lies in the protection of speech that provokes, challenges and sometimes even offends, enabling society to confront its own assumptions and grow from the ensuing debates.

This does not imply that harmful or dangerous speech should be tolerated without consequence, but that the answer to offensive speech should be more speech, not censorship. As we face global and national challenges, the need for free speech and civil discourse on college campuses is more critical than ever. Civility within discourse enables individuals to address contentious topics constructively, paving the way for more empathetic, understanding and knowledgeable citizens. By fostering an environment where all ideas can be shared, campuses nurture the democratic spirit, preparing students to participate in a society that thrives on pluralism and inclusivity. Let us therefore always protect free speech and civility on our campus to preserve these spaces for democratic expression.

Student Spotlight: Ellie Kim

As someone who is fairly engaged on campus, Dietrich student Ellie Kim can see the dissent that has been occurring on campus in regard to the newly announced Expressive Activities Policy. At the same time, she recognizes that there is a necessary balance between keeping students' freedom of speech protected and keeping students safe.

She noted that she can “see the reasoning behind pre-registration” for protests but added, “I think maybe concern can [arise if] people do get rejected. Then they could take it as, 'Oh [CMU] limited my free speech.’”

Kim feels it might be valuable for the administration to be more transparent about how they select or approve organizations that can conduct protests on campus. She believes that if the expressive activities policy does have a chilling effect on protest, students feeling less inclined to engage on campus is arguably also dangerous to students’ feeling of being properly represented and able to feel like they can exercise their freedom of speech.

Kim adds that it is possible to have discourse on campus, but that “It feels like the expressive activities on campus were kinda limited to the Fence.” During the election, for example, students regularly utilized Fence in order to promote social and political organizations on campus. Students felt painting the Fence was the most effective way to express their views on campus. Only one main facility for socio-political activity leaves much to be desired. Although relatively neutral, Kim expresses a sense of disappointment at how limited expressive activities were already, preceding the roll-out of the new policy.

Overall, Kim believes it would have been valuable for the administration to hold a town hall meeting with students about the policy, instead of sending an email before classes began, as this direct involvement would have clarified the need for the new policy and prevented the confusion many students felt when starting classes this fall.

Faculty Spotlight: Michael Trujillo

Social rejection. Micheal Trujjio, assistant professor of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, has a lot to say about their passion about the implications of rejection such as rejection from strangers, familiars, and role models and what causes variation in reaction and impacts on an individual’s psyche.

There is the idea that rejection builds strength and resilience. That rejection is something that you push through. However, Trujjio wants to shift the conversation to view different consequences of rejection.

Their previous research explored how stigma can shape different physiological outcomes between lesbian, gay, bisexual and straight individuals — investigating how gay, lesbian and bisexual people face sexual orientation-related rejection that makes their everyday physiological experiences different and sometimes more stressful.

Trujillo’s interest in rejection led to their ongoing research on how rejection influences minorities, particularly, how explicit and implicit rejection have varying implications, offering the idea that “differences in rejection are shaped by who rejects."

Originating from the passion and curiosity of undergraduate students, the study, which began at the end of the previous year, was designed and initiated by undergraduate students Camille Chandler, Silas Wang and Tasnim Rida, utilizing the the Stigma, Health Equity, and Resilience (SHER) Lab to conduct their research.

"We're looking at where we can start to intervene while engaging in collective action - taking practical approaches to prevent the continuation of stigma and negative health outcomes."

Trujillo explains that the project focuses on how individuals interpret experiences of rejection, particularly examining the differences between direct and ambiguous rejection. They emphasize the significance of ingroup rejection, stating, "Experiencing rejection from your own group can be quite different" and "sometimes much more meaningful" compared to outgroup rejection, which one might more easily dismiss.

The research aims to explore why rejection experiences vary from person to person and how they influence long-term outcomes. Trujillo highlights that minorities are more sensitive to subtle rejections, experiencing heightened negative impacts, particularly within their own group. This increased sensitivity has led the desire to further investigate these experiences. Understanding these minor rejections is crucial, as they can significantly affect psychological well-being and social interactions.

"Versus when you experience rejection from another [group], you can write it off a bit as just racism or sexism," Trujillo notes, underlining the contrast between ingroup and outgroup rejection experiences.

Trujillo expresses hope that this research will contribute to a better understanding of mental health and social dynamics.

When asked about their hopes for the research's impact on the community, Trujillo enthusiastically emphasizes that the focus of this work was largely inspired by students. Given the opportunity to establish a lab, Trujillo and their students have worked tirelessly to bring this crucial research to fruition.

Trujillo expresses the hope that their broader work will play a significant role in shaping policies that impact minority communities. They see this research as a starting point for intervention, combining collective action with practical approaches to prevent the perpetuation of stigma and its negative health outcomes. "Awareness is key," Trujillo notes, highlighting the importance of understanding in addressing these issues.

The professor's dedication to making a positive change through research is evident as Trujillo discusses the potential for this work to enhance people's understanding of mental health. Trujillo emphasizes the practical applications of their findings, stating, "We're looking at where we can start to intervene while engaging in collective action - taking practical approaches to prevent the continuation of stigma and negative health outcomes."

Throughout the interview, Trujillo's enthusiasm is palpable as they describe how their research aims to bridge the gap between academic findings and real-world impact, potentially influencing policies and interventions that could improve the lives of stigmatized populations. Their work, rooted in both the social psychology of stigma and the psychobiological pathways linking social stress and health, represents a comprehensive approach to addressing these complex issues.

Trujillo emphasizes that "actions and inactions can impact" those around us, particularly when it comes to confronting harmful language, such as slurs. Trujillo acknowledges that "it is understandable if you feel ashamed when this happens because it feels terrible," highlighting the common feelings of shame associated with mental health struggles.

They encourage individuals to seek out supportive people in their lives, noting that "more often than not people will want to help," even if it’s just by listening. Trujillo also advocates for self-care practices, suggesting that sometimes it's beneficial to "go for a walk or be by yourself." Importantly, they remind us that if challenges become overwhelming, "just know that if it ever gets too difficult that you should seek help," reinforcing the value of professional support.

Trujillo acknowledges the stigma surrounding mental health discussions but believes there is a growing effort to "do a better job talking about it and normalize it." They assert that "everyone should have a therapist!" emphasizing the necessity of mental health care for all individuals. Lastly, Trujillo cautions against normalizing negative experiences, stating, "let's not normalize rejection," as fostering a positive and supportive dialogue is crucial for overall well-being.

What's Happening on Campus: Events and Opportunities