I became a student journalist the first day of my freshman year of high school and before that was an avid reader. As a result of my upbringing, I am very opinionated about ensuring the constitutional right to free speech, especially as I begin my time as a college student.
I am fortunate to attend a school that wants students to “thrive in an environment that insists upon both civility and the free and open exchange of ideas,” according to the ‘Colby Plan: Mission and Precepts’ statement. However, after one semester, I have witnessed tests of this claim and recognize that concrete action must be taken. On September 26, 2025, the Dean of the College, Gustavo Burkett, emailed the community to explain an instance where the “defacing of… Colby College Young Republicans Club” posters and “targeted anonymous posts on social media” occurred, asserting that “statements made through the defacing of the posters [were] clearly prohibited and very much contrary to our community values.”. A second email was sent on October 6, stating that those responsible came forward and faced punishment.
Free speech is complicated, especially regarding hate speech and fighting words; the latter is unprotected by the First Amendment. The College’s Framework of the Right to Protest states that although students can protest, protests cannot violate laws, incite violence, or include “harassment or intimidation.,” Colby has grappled with upholding these principles, particularly after a protest regarding racial injustice on the College’s campus in 2015, resulting in racially insensitive posts on the anonymous app Yik Yak. Members of Colby’s faculty denounced the comments and encouraged inclusivity.
Such incidents at Colby warranted different responses from the College. This year, there was disciplinary action because the perpetrator came forward. In 2015, there was only condemnation since no one was found to blame. No matter the response, students may feel their voice was unheard. In September, the perpetrators may have felt that their defacement of the posters was an expression of their own rights. Those protesting racial injustice felt rejected when others used free speech to spread hate. This uncertainty increases suppression and polarization, leading to an established belief that should students speak out, they will be ridiculed and not respected by their peers. With the school’s lack of a consistent and firm stance, students remain uncertain about the actions they can take, promoting a negative campus culture.
This is a complex issue that has been debated across the nation for decades. However, realistic changes can help people feel included while ensuring their freedom of expression. The College can encourage confidence in practicing free speech by enforcing a more specific policy that clearly informs students of the punishment for violating its rules and why. The school should craft a clear stance of what constitutes hate speech and fighting words on campus, providing examples beyond the overarching claim against Identity-Based Harassment (“Excerpts from Student…” 4). This can be accomplished by encouraging students affected by the issue (such as those involved in the previous incidents), outspoken groups (like The Colby Echo), SGA leaders, administration, and anyone wanting to participate to engage in an open conversation about the document’s language. Additionally, the school can promote a culture of scholarly discourse. Currently, the student body watches those who speak out be ridiculed and understand that the allowance of one opinion can suppress another. However, by cementing a culture of respect and duality, students will think of the effects their actions have on others and engage openly. This can be accomplished through expanding Colby’s LinC course’s curriculum, where groups of 10 students would learn to engage with opposing opinions in academic settings at the beginning of their Colby experience.
A conversation about the current policy allows the College to eliminate situations caused by confusion. This idea was practiced by other schools in the NESCAC region, with about 63 percent of Trinity College’s students stating that their administration’s policy is “‘extremely’ or ‘very’ clear,” and that student’s speech was protected, according to the NESCAC’s “2025 College Free Speech Rankings” released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression group. About 39 percent of Colby students alternatively claim it is “‘not at all’ or ‘not very’ clear” that the administration protects free speech on campus.” The survey demonstrates Trinity’s success in making its students aware of administrative policy, hinting towards the validity of engaging students in writing it.
This proposal would not impose a financial burden, but requires time, communication, and cooperation between the staff and student body. Additionally, to be properly implemented, large efforts would need to be made to ensure students know the policy has changed, becoming stricter. This may upset some students, who feel like they are being too controlled by authority. However, if done correctly, this trade-off would promote more individual liberty.
Adding lessons to LinC’s curriculum, covering the application of scholarly discourse to all aspects of an academic setting, would promote a change in campus-wide culture more seamlessly. These lessons would acknowledge the importance of differing opinions in a college setting and issue assignments that require students to analyze contrasting viewpoints in a respectful manner. Through repetition and application, students may turn away from the habit of dismissing ideas they dislike, trickling into other aspects of the Colby community, and promoting a stronger sense of collaboration through diversity.
However, this proposal requires large amounts of resources and time to implement on campus. Since LinC already has a set curriculum and number of meetings per semester, adding new lessons may require others to be cut, causing students to miss other valuable information. Furthermore, since LinC is not mandatory, there would need to be an incentive to encourage student participation, such as requiring the course, resulting in a need for more sessions to fit schedules, therefore taking more time to see benefits. However, Class Dean of First-Year Students Jillian Duquaine-Watson acknowledges this may actually make the effects stronger. “[There is] value [in] having students engage with different kinds of events and resources on campus in an experiential way,” Duquaine-Watson said. Over time, students will accept the message and apply it to other areas of their lives, even spreading it to older peers.
The implementation of such ideas requires collaboration from all members of Colby’s community. A conversation would take time to reach a fair compromise, and Colby should begin by spreading the news and recruiting interested students, perhaps by releasing a series of articles in The Colby Echo detailing the policy and what is being debated. To add to LinC’s curriculum, the first step involves developing new lessons to present to Duquaine-Watson, who could implement them into the program, ensuring a seamless transition from other topics.
With the issue’s complexity, there are several ways others could help. For example, instead of requiring in-person discussions, the College could adapt an online program, where students could watch videos and write responses, saving any financial burdens and restricting the required time. However, this may make it less impactful, with students rushing to complete any assignments without absorbing information.
It is vital that Colby evolves, recognizing the present issue on campus. With updated policy and constructive dialogue, students will respect others and express their opinions, an important part of academia.
~ Isabella Boggs `29
Be First to Comment