About these Guides
Audience
The CAT has developed these guides for any members of our community (faculty, staff, or students) who wish to facilitate conversations with other community members about the Draft Statement on Free Expression & Academic Freedom. We encourage facilitators with any level of experience to participate, and have designed these guides to provide varied levels of support. All are encouraged to mix and match resources to meet their specific needs.
Goals
Ideally, these conversations will give faculty, staff, and students the opportunity to both explore the statement and reflect on their own views. Ultimately, however, we hope they will enrich our collective understanding of these complicated issues and strengthen our ability to navigate them together.
What’s Included
In what follows, you will find materials you can distribute, along with substantive conversation guides organized around specific themes. Each guide will include suggestions for substantive goals, timing, activities, and different kinds of discussion questions. We have also included substantive discussion notes for each guide to help those who are new to leading conversations about these topics. Finally, we have provided some generic tips for facilitating productive conversations at the very end.
Materials to Share
Defining Free Expression & Academic Freedom
Goal: Participants will be able to explain the key differences between free expression and academic freedom as defined in the statement.
Timing: We recommend setting aside 5-7 minutes to discuss reading comprehension questions, 8-10 minutes for conceptual analysis questions, 10-12 minutes for personal reflection questions, and 12-15 minutes for application questions. Since both the pre-discussion reading guide and comparison worksheet address the reading comprehension questions, using either one frees up time for more complex discussions.
For 45-60 minute discussions, we recommend one of the following four patterns:
- 45-minute session with activity and 2-3 questions.
- 45-minute session with pre-reading and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with activity and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with pre-reading and 4-7 questions.
Optional Activity: Comparison Worksheet (15 min)
- Distribute copies of the Draft Statement and Worksheet #1.
- Divide participants into pairs.
- Ask participants to read lines 33-63 and complete the worksheet.
- Bring the full group back together and invite pairs to share.
- Complete a master worksheet incorporating insights from each pair.
Reading Comprehension Questions:
- What activities and speech does “free expression” protect?
- Who has the right to free expression on campus?
- What does “academic freedom” protect?
- Who is granted the right to academic freedom?
- What historical examples demonstrate Wake Forest’s commitment to these freedoms?
Conceptual Analysis Questions:
- What are the similarities and differences between free expression and academic freedom?
- Which historical examples demonstrate the protection of free expression, which demonstrate the protection of academic freedom, and which protect both?
Personal Reflection Questions:
- When have you expressed an unpopular view and felt grateful for protection of your expression? What made this protection important?
- How has encountering different perspectives contributed to your understanding? What conditions made this learning possible?
- What have you learned in your courses that seemed controversial to the public but was well-established in the field? How did expertise matter?
- When have you witnessed expression that seemed to cross a line? How did this shape your thinking about reasonable limits?
Application Questions:
- How might reasonable time, place, and manner regulations apply differently to protests in different campus locations?
- How should the university respond differently when faculty express controversial views within versus outside their expertise?
- How does protecting expression for “members and invited guests” help us think about uninvited participants in demonstrations?
- When invited speakers face vocal opposition, how do the statement’s principles help us evaluate appropriate responses?
Freedom of Inquiry & the Core Function of the University
Goal: Participants will be able to explain how freedom of expression and academic freedom support the core function of the university: generating and disseminating knowledge in our society.
Timing: We recommend setting aside 5-7 minutes to discuss reading comprehension questions, 8-10 minutes for conceptual analysis questions, 10-12 minutes for personal reflection questions, and 12-15 minutes for application questions. Since both the pre-discussion reading guide and comparison worksheet activity address the reading comprehension questions, using either one frees up time for more complex discussions.
For 45-60 minute discussions, we recommend one of the following four patterns:
- 45-minute session with activity and 2-3 questions.
- 45-minute session with pre-reading and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with activity and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with pre-reading and 4-7 questions.
Optional Activities:
Activity #1: Comparison Worksheet (15 min)
- Distribute copies of the Draft Statement and Worksheet #2.
- Divide participants into pairs.
- Ask participants to read sentences 3-6 and 24-28, and to complete the worksheet.
- Bring the full group back together and invite pairs to share.
- Complete a master worksheet incorporating insights from each pair.
Activity #2: Reflection on Purpose (10 min + 5 min)
- Ask “If you had to describe the core function of the university, what would it be?”
- Record responses on a whiteboard or in a shared Google Doc.
- Circle/highlight purposes that align with generating and disseminating knowledge.
- Create a separate list for purposes that seem distinct from those purposes.
- After discussing other questions, turn back to the alternative list and ask, “How would the conversation we just had differ if these alternative purposes were considered core functions?”
Reading Comprehension Questions:
- How does the statement define the university’s core function?
- How does the statement characterize universities’ role in society?
- How does freedom of expression contribute to knowledge creation?
- How does freedom of expression support knowledge dissemination?
- How does academic freedom enable knowledge creation?
- How does academic freedom support knowledge dissemination?
Conceptual Analysis Questions:
- What does it mean to generate and disseminate knowledge? How are they distinct but related activities?
- How does the example of “brave colleagues” leading the way illustrate an important relationship between expression and the university’s mission?
Personal Reflection Questions:
- What do you see as the core function of the university?
- When have you felt free to explore or express a controversial view in class? What made that possible?
- When has a professor’s expertise helped you understand a controversial topic? How did academic freedom matter?
- How has exposure to different viewpoints deepened your understanding? What role did freedom of expression play?
Application Questions:
- How would different assumptions about the core function of the university change your answers to what we’ve discussed?
- When research findings challenge widely-held beliefs, how should the university’s core function guide its response?
- When students object to controversial content, how should principles about knowledge creation inform our approach?
- How do principles about knowledge dissemination help us evaluate speakers who challenge scientific consensus?
Freedom of Inquiry & Inclusive Community
Goal: Participants will be able to explain how freedom of inquiry and inclusion can be mutually reinforcing values that support the university’s mission, while also describing the statement’s approach to various situations where freedom of expression could put inclusion at risk.
Timing: We recommend setting aside 5-7 minutes to discuss reading comprehension questions, 8-10 minutes for conceptual analysis questions, 10-12 minutes for personal reflection questions, and 12-15 minutes for application questions. Since both the pre-discussion reading guide and comparison worksheet address the reading comprehension questions, using either one frees up time for more complex discussions.
For 45-60 minute discussions, we recommend one of the following four patterns:
- 45-minute session with activity and 2-3 questions.
- 45-minute session with pre-reading and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with activity and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with pre-reading and 4-7 questions.
Optional Activity:
Activity #1: Comparison Worksheet (15 min, ideally at the beginning of the session)
- Distribute copies of the Draft Statement and Worksheet #3
- Divide participants into pairs
- Ask participants to read the “Priority of an Inclusive and Collegial Community” section (78-88) and relevant sections about limits on expression (43-47) and limits on academic freedom (60-63), then complete the worksheet.
- Bring the full group back together and invite pairs to share
- Complete a master worksheet incorporating insights from each pair
Activity #2: Sorting Speech (15 minutes, ideally at the end of the session)
- Create five stations throughout the room, labeled with pre-written sheets of paper that read: “Encouraged,” “Allowed/Neutral,” “Discouraged,” “Regulated,” and “Prohibited.”
- Divide participants into five groups.
- Give each group 5-10 examples of expressions that are linked to categories discussed in the statement.
- Send each group to a separate station and invite them to decide which speech belongs in that category.
- Rotate stations every 2 minutes.
- Debrief.
Reading Comprehension Questions:
- The statement argues that freedom of expression has historically been a tool to “honor and liberate people at the margins of society.” How?
- What forms of expression does the statement identify as risks to inclusion?
- How does the statement recommend responding to:
- Direct threats, unlawful harassment, or illegal expression?
- Expression that disrupts university operations?
- Expression that limits others’ ability to express themselves?
- Expression intended to diminish others’ humanity?
- Expression considered “disturbing, offensive, or unwise”?
- What specific limits does the statement place on academic freedom?
Conceptual Analysis Questions:
- How does the statement argue that “freedom of expression and an inclusive community” depend on one another?
- How might the following types of expression work against the university’s core mission?
- Expression that diminishes community members
- Disruptive expression
- Non-expert teaching/publication
- How does the statement justify the limits they have drawn? Why not prohibit intentionally harmful speech?
Personal Reflection Questions:
- Have you ever felt torn between supporting free expression and supporting an inclusive environment? How did you navigate it?
- Can you recall a moment when someone’s right to speak freely led to meaningful change for a group that had been marginalized? What made that possible?
- Have you ever been in a situation where you or someone else felt unable to speak up because they didn’t feel like they belonged? How did that shape the conversation or community?
Application Questions:
- What should an instructor do if a student shares an idea that another student finds deeply offensive? How do we navigate both free inquiry and inclusion in classroom settings?
- A student group plans to display graphic images in a high-traffic area of campus to convey their message, which some students find disturbing. Should the university prohibit, regulate, or discourage this display? What factors should be considered in making this decision?
- During a campus event, audience members begin shouting down the speaker due to disagreements with their views, effectively ending the event prematurely. How should the university handle such incidents to uphold its commitment to free inquiry and discourse?
- A student organization publishes materials that dehumanize a particular ethnic group, leading to campus-wide outrage. How should the university respond to uphold its commitment to free inquiry while addressing the harm caused by such speech?
- Students report feeling unsafe due to dehumanizing comments made anonymously on a university-affiliated online platform. What policies should the university implement to address anonymous hate speech while preserving open discourse?
Freedom of Inquiry & the Voice of the Institution
Goal: Participants will be able to distinguish between Wake Forest’s institutional voice and the independent speech of its members, explain how institutional statements can both support and threaten freedom of inquiry, and identify the contexts in which the institution will and will not use its voice.
Timing: We recommend setting aside 5-7 minutes to discuss reading comprehension questions, 8-10 minutes for conceptual analysis questions, 10-12 minutes for personal reflection questions, and 12-15 minutes for application questions. Since the pre-discussion reading guide addresses the reading comprehension questions, using it frees up time for more complex discussions.
For 45-60 minute discussions, we recommend one of the following four patterns:
- 45-minute session with activity and 2-3 questions.
- 45-minute session with pre-reading and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with activity and 3-5 questions.
- 60-minute session with pre-reading and 4-7 questions.
Optional Activities:
Activity #1: Institutional Dilemmas (15 min)
- Present participants with a set of scenarios where Wake Forest is pressured to take a stance on a public issue. Examples could include:
- A controversial speaker is invited to campus.
- A faculty member critiques a political candidate in class.
- A national crisis prompts calls for a Wake Forestal statement.
- Assign small groups to analyze one scenario and decide how the university should respond based on the statement’s principles.
- Groups share their reasoning, followed by a brief facilitator-led discussion on the trade-offs of restraint.
Activity #2: Tracing Implications (15 min)
- Divide participants into small groups and assign each group one of the following passages from the statement (If there are more than three groups, facilitators can assign the same passages to multiple groups.):
- “The University and its leaders will not, however, establish a single University point of view about public matters that do not directly affect the University’s core function.” (68-70)
- “When members of our community exercise their academic freedom to speak on matters of public concern, they do not speak for the University as a whole.” (70-71)
- “That commitment includes defending free inquiry for diverse viewpoints, articulating the societal role of an inclusive community of learners, and explaining issues relevant to the University’s operation.” (66-68)
- Each group analyzes what their assigned passage means in practical terms, considering real-life examples on campus.
- Groups discuss and document potential implications for faculty, staff, and students.
- Bring groups together for a collective discussion where they compare findings and reflect on how these principles shape campus life.
Reading Comprehension Questions:
- The statement commits Wake Forest to using its institutional voice to “protect and promote its core function.” What speech does that include?
- The statement also commits Wake Forest to a principle of restraint, limiting certain uses of its institutional voice. What are those limits?
- How does the statement distinguish between the university’s institutional voice and the speech of faculty, staff, and students?
- What forms of care and support does the statement highlight as alternatives to public statements on major events?
Conceptual Analysis Questions:
- According to the statement, the university will not “establish a single University point of view about public matters that do not directly affect the University’s core function” (emphasis ours). Explain why each of the bold words is significant.
- Given your answers to the last question, do you think the statement is recommending silence?
- How do the limits placed on institutional speech relate to freedom of expression and academic freedom?
- Why might people expect Wake Forest to establish a single point of view about public matters that do not directly affect the core function of Wake Forest? How does the statement address those expectations?
Personal Reflection Questions:
- Have you ever expected Wake Forest to take a stand on an issue? If they did not, how did it make you feel?
- Can you recall a time when Wake Forest made a public statement with which you disagreed? How did this make you feel? Did you feel your views were welcome on campus?
- Can you recall a time when you or someone you know spoke out on an issue while Wake Forest remained silent? How did you interpret that difference?
Application Questions:
- What should Wake Forest do if members of the community argue that its refusal to take a position on a public issue makes them feel unwelcome?
- What should Wake Forest do if an external group—such as donors or politicians—pressures the university to take a position on a public issue?
- A faculty member makes a public statement about a controversial issue. Should Wake Forest step in to clarify that the faculty member does not speak for the institution?
- How should the university handle situations where its own leadership makes statements that seem to contradict its policy of restraint?
Facilitating Conversations: A Guide for Beginners
Leading conversations about contentious issues like free speech and inclusion can be daunting, especially if you’re new to facilitation. Here are some basic tips to help you facilitate with confidence.
Set the Stage:
- Be clear about the purpose and scope of the discussion upfront. Provide relevant materials (like the university statement) in advance.
- Collaborate with the group to establish discussion guidelines. These often include agreements to listen actively, speak from personal experience, maintain confidentiality, and assume good intentions.
- Acknowledge that strong emotions may arise and that’s okay. Encourage participants to take care of themselves and take breaks if needed.
Model Constructive Dialogue:
- Demonstrate respectful communication in your facilitation. Use “I” statements, avoid generalizations, and steer clear of inflammatory language.
- Practice active listening. Paraphrase key points to confirm understanding. Ask clarifying questions before responding.
- Normalize the existence of multiple perspectives. Emphasize that the goal is understanding, not necessarily agreement.
Engage the Group:
- Use open-ended questions to stimulate reflection and analysis. Ask participants to connect abstract ideas to real-world examples.
- Encourage participants to consider how different identities and experiences might shape perspectives.
- Provide multiple ways to participate, like written reflection or small group discussions.
- If the dialogue strays off-topic, gently refocus on the key questions at hand.
Navigate Challenges:
- If tensions rise, try to maintain a calm, neutral presence.
- Distinguish between criticizing ideas and attacking people.
- If a participant dominates, set limits to create space for others.
- If someone discloses a painful experience, validate their feelings without probing for details. Refer to support resources as appropriate.
Support Yourself:
- Recognize your own emotional reactions. It’s okay to be affected by the conversation.
- Reflect on how your identities and experiences shape your facilitation.
- Know your limits. If a conversation exceeds your skills or the group’s needs, seek additional support or consider bringing in a more experienced facilitator.