Free Speech and the Transparency Imperative

As if American higher education hasn't weathered enough upheaval lately, universities across the country now face a kind of violence that, once unimaginable, happened before our very eyes—and repeatedly. This particular (and more new) type of violence is rooted, tragically, in language itself. Regardless of one's political viewpoints, an agreement can hopefully be made that people are taking what was once highly valued rhetoric—that ancient Greek art of skillful persuasion—and have armed words with the very literal force of automatic weapons. 

And so the concept of 'free speech'—like so many facets of higher education—finds itself in necessary transition, shaped both by America's evolving understanding of what free expression means on campus and by a generational shift marked by rapid communication and polarized discourse.

The problems run deeper than semantics, we can be sure; but they all seem linked to an erosion of trusted leadership across personal, public, educational, and governmental spheres. Political, social, racial, educational, and economic divisions have grown so severe that seeing the forest for the trees has become nearly impossible.

Yet this crisis of trust exposes something more fundamental: the systematic failure of transparency in how universities handle free speech. When institutions retreat behind closed doors to make decisions about expression, protest, and safety, they inadvertently fuel the very distrust they're trying to manage. They hold students in the lurch, and they make themselves vulnerable. The line between that which defines hate speech and that which sacrifices free expression is rarely, if ever, properly defined.

The Transparency Crisis in Campus Leadership

The evidence supporting a change in how institutions talk about free speech is stark. FIRE's 2025 College Free Speech Rankings reveal that 42% of students believe their administration only "somewhat" protects free speech, while 24% say it's "not at all" or "not very" clear that administrators safeguard expression rights. More troubling still, 32% of students now consider violence to stop campus speeches "rarely" acceptable—an alarming jump from 20% just five years ago.

This deterioration doesn't happen in a vacuum. It thrives in environments where institutional decision-making lacks transparency, where students and faculty discover policy changes only after the fact, and where administrators communicate through crisis management rather than proactive dialogue. The recent wave of campus violence and protest has exposed how opacity breeds mistrust, which in turn creates the conditions for more extreme responses to controversial speech.

Consider the mechanics of institutional failure: when universities like Columbia suspend student organizations without clear justification, revise policies quietly, and refuse to correct public misstatements, they don't just violate procedural norms—they actively undermine the trust necessary for productive disagreement. When USC cancels a valedictorian's speech citing "safety concerns" without demonstrating actual threats or exploring security alternatives, the message sent is that unpopular viewpoints will be silenced rather than protected.

Case Study: One University's Opacity Problem

One University offers a textbook example of how institutional secrecy amplifies free speech crises. The trajectory from the October 2023 suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace to the 2024 encampment protests illustrates transparency's absence at every critical juncture.

The university's initial response involved quietly revising event policies without Senate input, then citing those revised policies to justify suspensions. When administrators privately retracted claims about "threatening rhetoric" but never issued public corrections, they created an information vacuum filled by speculation and distrust. By spring 2024, this opacity had fostered such institutional mistrust that negotiations with student protesters repeatedly collapsed, culminating in the occupation of Hamilton Hall and mass arrests.

Columbia's---yes, Columbia's---troubles continued into 2025 when the Trump administration targeted the university with funding cuts, ultimately forcing policy changes that faculty and civil liberties groups condemned as capitulation. The university's agreement to place its Middle East studies department under external supervision and adopt new protest restrictions represents the endpoint of a transparency crisis—external authorities imposing solutions because internal governance had failed to maintain community trust.

The pattern is clear: each and every crisis response prioritized immediate damage control over transparent process, creating conditions for the next escalation. Students and faculty, excluded from meaningful participation in policy development, increasingly turned to protest and occupation as their only avenue for influence.

Hope isn't completely lost, however. There are institutions whose frameworks U.S. universities would be wise to emulate, even if human and financial resources would seem a limitation.

The University of Edinburgh's Transparency Framework

The University of Edinburgh effectively demonstrates how proactive transparency can prevent the kind of spirals seen in the U.S. over the last two years. Rather than managing free speech crises reactively, Edinburgh has built systematic transparency into its approach to academic freedom and expression.

The university's Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression Working Group operates with explicit transparency commitments: all policy development occurs through open consultation, decisions are documented with clear rationales, and regular public reporting tracks implementation. When controversies arise—such as the 2023 incident involving the film Adult Human Female—the university responds through established, transparent processes rather than ad hoc administrative decisions.

Edinburgh's approach centers on what they term "legislatively up-to-date, transparent and supportive set of policies and procedures." This isn't just bureaucratic language; it reflects a fundamental commitment to making institutional decision-making visible and accountable. The university publishes detailed guidance on balancing competing claims, provides clear appeals processes, and maintains public records of how policies evolve in response to new challenges.

Crucially, Edinburgh's transparency extends to acknowledging limitations and ongoing debates. Rather than pretending to have resolved complex tensions between free expression and other values, the university documents these tensions openly and invites community input on managing them. This approach builds rather than erodes trust precisely because it refuses false certainty in favor of honest complexity.

The results speak for themselves. While universities like Columbia and USC have faced recurring crises that escalate into national controversies, Edinburgh has managed controversial speakers, complex protests, and ideological conflicts without descending into institutional crisis. The difference isn't the absence of disagreement—it's the presence of transparent, predictable processes for managing disagreement.

The Faculty-Administration Transparency Gap

The free speech crisis also reveals dangerous opacity between faculty and administration. At Columbia, hundreds of faculty walked out to protest administrative decisions they had no role in shaping. At USC, faculty learned about the valedictorian speech cancellation through public announcements rather than internal consultation. These patterns reflect a broader breakdown in shared governance that transparency requirements could help address.

Edinburgh's model again provides contrast. Faculty participate directly in policy development through working groups with public mandates and regular reporting requirements. When controversial decisions must be made, the rationale is documented and shared, not just with internal stakeholders but with the broader university community. This approach doesn't eliminate disagreement, but it prevents the sort of institutional surprise that fuels faculty rebellion and student protest.

Moving Forward: Transparency as Institutional Strategy

The path forward requires recognizing transparency not as a luxury for calmer times, but as an essential crisis prevention plan. Universities that embrace transparency in their free speech governance create conditions for productive disagreement rather than destructive conflict.

This means several concrete changes: publishing clear policies before controversies arise, documenting decision-making rationales in real time, creating regular forums for community input on speech-related challenges, and establishing independent oversight mechanisms that can review institutional responses. Most importantly, it means abandoning the illusion that controversial issues can be managed through administrative discretion rather than community engagement.

The stakes extend beyond individual institutions. American higher education's global reputation increasingly depends on demonstrating that democratic values—including transparency and accountability—can function effectively even amid deep disagreement. Universities that retreat into opacity may achieve short-term crisis management, but they sacrifice the long-term trust necessary for intellectual freedom to flourish.

As Edinburgh's example demonstrates, transparency doesn't eliminate difficult choices or prevent all conflicts. But it does create the conditions under which communities can engage those challenges constructively rather than destructively. In an era when trust in institutions has become a scarce resource, universities that invest in transparency may discover it's their most valuable asset for navigating an uncertain future.