Our Approach to Campus Speakers

At WashU, our motto is Per Veritatum Vis, or Strength Through Truth. A nonsectarian university like ours is one of the few institutions built for the purpose of unrestricted discovery, through teaching, learning, and research in community with others who are equally devoted to scholarship. While plenty of teaching and learning takes place in other communities, such as within religious organizations, healthy workplaces, or even family units, a university like ours is unique because it exists to provide a singular space where the pursuit of knowledge knows no boundaries – where ideas can be explored, questioned, and reimagined free from external constraints or predetermined outcomes.  

Truth seeking is slow-moving business. In fact, it’s work that never ends. Those of us who choose to engage in it do well to play the long game; to know that the work we contribute to in our lifetime is but a piece of what will be considered truth from a historical perspective; or that our greatest contribution may well be revised or even reversed as new knowledge emerges. It’s part of what makes academic work a noble pursuit, and conversely, why one should approach that work with a humble mindset. It’s in this spirit of humility that I want to address the topic of controversial campus speakers, and share my thoughts about the role of a university administration in determining what ideas are worthy of being heard within our academic community.  

I can expect that every year, a student group or academic unit will invite to campus a scholar or public figure whose ideas may be counter to the popular narrative of the day and, in turn, the perspectives of members of our community. These can vary from those who take stances on highly debated topics, like immigration, gender, race, or religion. Or, they could be current or former political figures, public intellectuals known for polarizing views, or individuals associated with contested social movements. At institutions of distinction like WashU, we value diversity of opinion and we grow in civil debate. We choose WashU because we want to be challenged. And one way we do this is to expose ourselves to ideas that push us out of our intellectual comfort zones. 

Every so often, the buzz around a controversial speaker swells into a roar of debate about whether that person or their ideas are welcome on our campus, and in those cases, my office receives many requests for me to use my authority as chancellor to disallow the event. Some community members also seek clarity about whether hosting a speaker implies administrative or institutional endorsement of their views.

As I’ve shared before, my highest priority in these situations is to ensure community safety, which we evaluate through close collaboration with law enforcement and other experts. But what may surprise you is that, in the case of determining who can speak at WashU, that is where the role of the administration begins and ends. While the chancellor and administration support the academic mission, the substance of scholarship and decisions about teaching and learning are primarily led by scholars – students and faculty.  This shared responsibility is intentional and absolutely crucial to our mission.

At WashU, we enjoy a culture of free inquiry – or as our policy on tenure, responsibility and academic freedom states, the “freedom to explore the life of the mind” – without undue interference from the administration of the university. Free inquiry is what allows progress and truth seeking to persist across the lifetime of the university, regardless of the commonly accepted perspectives of the day or the opinions, motivations, or biases of a particular leader or administration. Without the separation of responsibility between the administration and the faculty, it wouldn’t take long for a university to become an ideological echo chamber.  

We encourage our faculty and others who invite speakers to campus to thoughtfully consider how the event may affect our community members. However, disallowing an event because concerned parties feel that a speaker’s ideas are offensive or even abhorrent is counter to the value of freedom of inquiry that we embrace as an institution. It’s also a slippery slope that can lead to a weakening of our reputation as a place of intellectual rigor. WashU students and faculty have the intellectual resilience to hear, consider, debate, and ultimately accept or reject controversial or offensive ideas. Indeed, engaging with challenging viewpoints often serves to sharpen our own intellectual arguments and deepen our scholarly understanding, making us more effective advocates for the principles and positions we ultimately choose to defend.  

Students or others who are concerned about a particular speaker are not without power to make their voices heard. As members of a teaching and learning community founded on the principles of free inquiry, they can organize respectful counter-programming and create space for substantive dialogue, write opinion pieces analyzing the speaker’s arguments, or request that an academic department host follow-up discussions to contextualize the speaker’s remarks. They can hold peaceful demonstrations or teach-ins within the bounds of university policy, or they can participate constructively in the event in order to ask thoughtful and challenging questions. They can even organize a boycott of the event. Of course, in the case of campus speakers, we all have the option to decide that engaging with that person’s ideas is not in our personal best interest.

At its core, a university is not merely a place where established truths are transmitted, but where ideas – even controversial ones – are examined, challenged, and debated in pursuit of deeper understanding. When we respond to challenging speakers with intellectual rigor and principled engagement rather than suppression, we demonstrate the very strength through truth that our motto proclaims. In doing so, we not only uphold our commitment to free inquiry but also prepare our students to be thoughtful citizens capable of engaging with difficult ideas in ways that advance both knowledge and civil discourse. This is how we fulfill our mission as a place of unrestricted discovery, and how we ensure that WashU remains a vibrant intellectual community for generations to come.