Through a new Democratic Candidate, a raucous Democratic National Convention, and two separate assassination attempts on a former president, one thing has remained a constant this election cycle: protests.
Perhaps most notably, this year college students across the country held campus protests condemning Israel's war in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attacks.
Over the summer, the protests moved off-campus, including ones that occurred the day before the start of the DNC. That and other demonstrations like it have helped spark a conversation among Gen Z about what free speech means and what limits they think should apply to it.
What the Vote? is a limited-run podcast from Michigan Public’s Stateside all about what matters to Gen Z this election year. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform to make sure you don’t miss an episode.
A case study in campus protest
From social media to campus protests, Gen Z has more options than ever for expressing their political viewpoints, making it important to understand if they fully comprehend free speech and its limits.
“I think social media and protests are the biggest forms of free speech I’ve seen in Gen Z, but I think they’re doing it in ways to make it their own, and creative ways, which is fun to see,” Jari Wilson, an associate attorney at Romano Law, said.
She’s seen Gen Z interact the most with important political issues, such as debates and Supreme Court decisions, through memes on social media. But she’s also seen how social media backlash has the potential to stifle some opinions.
“I think it’s definitely shaped Gen Z to be vocal in some senses, but also, in some ways, not as vocal,” said Wilson.
Some campus protests received significant national coverage this year. Others, such as the encampment at Western Michigan University, didn’t. Western’s encampment had the same tension between free speech and campus safety as its counterparts, but an overall recognition that conversation was key.
That didn’t mean the road to dialogue was easy, though.
Marissa Wagner was one of the Western Michigan University students who has been organizing protests–including the campus encampment this spring.
“We planned [the protest] within, like, less than 48 hours because graduation was happening and we wanted to make sure we were there, um, during graduation,” Wagner said.
According to Wagner, WMU spokespeople approached the encampment with multiple unsigned letters, some lacking the university’s letterhead. That made it difficult to trust if there was going to be follow through on the actions proposed, she said.
The protesters’ final interaction before taking the encampment down occurred with three campus safety officers and Paula Davis, Western’s associate vice president of strategic communications.
“It was very obvious they didn't want this to escalate,” said Wagner. “And they were doing everything they could to, like, be civil and, not like upset us.”
Wagner said the group didn’t want things to escalate either. So, after taking a group vote, the encampment disbanded and reached an agreement with administrators.
A group of organizers and administrators would meet every other week to discuss a resolution.
This included penning a letter to the campus community from the president about the war in Gaza and the ongoing humanitarian crisis there. But Wagner said that the process was not as smooth as she’d hoped it would be.
In the end, the president did release a letter to the campus community.
“The causes and solutions to the hostilities abroad are intensely debated both in the region and right here at home,” a portion of the letter reads. “This includes some students and others in our community who have voiced their concerns. Central to our mission as a university is to seek knowledge and build understanding so that we can pass it on to current and future generations. As such, we are committed to the free exchange of ideas. It is also part of our obligation to ensure that those exchanges are informed by facts and context.”
Wagner wasn’t the only one who was unhappy with the administration’s letter. Other people in Western Michigan’s community voiced their concerns at a Board of Trustees meeting on June 27, 2024.
“The president's statement makes it abundantly clear that the administration has acted in bad faith in order to dilute, delay and disempower the student movement and never had any intention of negotiating even the least complicated of their demands,” said Western alum Sarah Ruggles. “It does give people, however, conscience the clarity of no confidence in the current leadership.”
Western Michigan University did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Defining free speech isn’t easy
Scenes like this, with students and admin butting heads over free speech, happened across college campuses last school year. Many students felt that the dismantling of encampments stifled free speech. But Gen Z is not the first generation to test the limits of political speech on campus. And there are years of legal precedent that have helped shape universities’ responses.
It’s important to note that government-dictated time, place and manner restrictions are legal. However, the government cannot dictate, up to a certain point, what the content of the speech might be. This is known as content neutrality.
Western Michigan University is a public university, which means its actions have to follow the rules for government entities. And it’s this content neutrality that fueled much of the tension on college campuses earlier this year, including Western.
Students believed the university should divest from companies with any ties to Israel’s war effort. Jennifer Townsend is a professor and member of WeTalk, an organization on Western’s campus that promotes respectful discourse. She saw the situation differently.
“I believe any University statement of any kind addressing any political situation is inappropriate, and, in fact, may unintentionally hinder the speech of individuals both on campus and in the community who may disagree,” Townsend said during that same Board of Trustees meeting this past June. “Furthermore, demands for divestment are demands for WMU to choose a side in a political conflict based on one group's point of view.”
She encouraged the university to adopt institutional neutrality and join the likes of Harvard, the University of Chicago, and others.
“The purpose of the university is not to proclaim the truth of a situation,” Townsend told Michigan Public. “It is not to choose a side in a geopolitical event. The purpose of the university is to seek the truth for any of the big questions science, engineering, humanities, any of it. The purpose is to seek the truth, and through that, through to educate and to be educated.”
Townsend says that having open dialogue, like the kind facilitated by WeTalk, is important.
“So generally, if we're not able to have a civil conversation about topics that we don't agree on, we're not able to compromise,” said Townsend. “And if you can't compromise, you can't make progress.”
The challenge of open dialogue
Townsend said she encounters a few barriers when she talks to students about creating open dialogue around tough issues. First, she said, many young people aren’t open to having their minds changed. And, she added, some misunderstand the legal limitations of free speech protections.
That’s a concern echoed by Professor Nancy Costello, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Michigan State University. She teaches a media law class at MSU. Costello recalls a specific conversation about Trump getting kicked off social media platforms after the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. She asked her students:
“‘What's the argument from Twitter and Facebook's point of view for why they can kick them off?’ People were willing to step up in class and talk about the argument,” said Costello. “And then I asked, ‘Now, what's Trump's argument for why he shouldn't get kicked off?’ I could barely get people to participate in class and give me Trump's argument.”
Costello found it alarming that these students, who had chosen to take a First Amendment course, were unwilling to entertain the other side of the legal argument.
“That means that free speech matters to them,” said Costello. “And yet, even in a classroom, in an academic setting where there's a professor there who's going to protect your right to speak. They were afraid to speak.”
Attorney Jari Wilson suggested that the lack of participation in such settings could be due to fear of backlash in person or on social media.
“No one really wants to go viral for the wrong reasons, so to speak,” she said.
For college administrators, Wilson added, encouraging open dialogue about controversial topics can be a bit of a tightrope walk.
“Universities can't say on the one hand, we're going to give you a liberal education and show you how to bring about change, but then we're not going to encourage you to exercise those skills and bring about change,” Wilson said.
Campus tensions remain
The violence in Gaza after Hamas’s attack last October has been a testing ground for free speech on campus, but it’s not the first time this has happened. Similar protests have taken place in many social movements, for example, the Civil Rights, Occupy Wall Street, Apartheid, and other protests.
Many young people protesting the current violence in Gaza hope to push for policy change on campus and beyond, like movements before them.
“I think the younger people want more, more direct and impactful actions,” student protest organizer Marisa Wagner said.
It’s unlikely that Gen Z will ultimately resolve the tension between college administrators and students over campus protests. But their actions have already contributed to a tangible impact on this year’s election.
President Joe Biden was polling significantly worse among young people than he did in 2020. Kamala Harris’ reception among Gen Z voters has been more positive, though she still faces significant pushback among Arab American and Muslim voters over the Biden administration’s stance on Gaza.
But if the campus protests over the past year translate into Gen Z making their voices heard at the ballot box, they could be a key factor in deciding the outcome of the presidential election here in Michigan.
