As an institution of higher education, particularly a Catholic, Jesuit university, Marquette genuinely needs community members to explore, discuss, and vigorously debate ideas, both in and out of the classroom.

 

Marquette University Mission-Based Free Expression Statement 

Endorsed by University Academic Senate, May 6, 2024
Adopted May 9, 2024

Marquette University’s mission is: “the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, the fostering of personal and professional excellence, the promotion of a life of faith, and the development of leadership expressed in service to others” — all “pursue[d] for the greater glory of God and the common benefit of the human community.”¹ The university’s mission specifically embodies “the Jesuit tenets of cura personalis (care for the whole person) and cura apostolica (care for the work of the institution)”² and these dual tenets necessarily inform its approach to university policies, including the appropriate breadth and limits of free expression. 

As an institution of higher education, particularly a Catholic, Jesuit university, Marquette genuinely needs community members to explore, discuss, and vigorously debate ideas, both in and out of the classroom.³ Education involves drawing out and probing premises, arguments, and conclusions. Neither comfort nor unthinking conformity is the objective, because learning involves discomfort as we think about a wide range of ideas and test our assumptions.  

The initial guideposts for encouraging this robust exchange of ideas are found in the protections of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This clause, which is subject to ongoing development in the courts, places significant and well-developed limits on the government’s ability to regulate expression, which includes verbal, written, and digital or electronic communications as well as images, symbols, gestures, and portrayals intended to convey an understandable message, idea, or viewpoint. It is anticipated that Free Speech Clause standards will cover nearly all issues involving expression. 

Yet because the university is a private educational community, not a state or municipality, and has a unique mission to enhance the moral and spiritual formation of its community members, these First Amendment guideposts are essential but not exclusive. Along with the Free Speech Clause, Marquette’s approach to expression must take account of the principle of human dignity and the compatibility of expression with genuine moral and spiritual formation, as understood within the Catholic, Jesuit tradition.  

Thus, while members of the university community do and should enjoy wide latitude in their expression, there may be occasions when speech is so manifestly antithetical to human dignity, the university’s Guiding Values, and creating a vibrant educational environment that the university may restrict it. Though not an exhaustive list, examples could include: 1) well-known slurs that are flagrantly and intentionally expressed so as to dehumanize others on the basis of race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability; 2) explicit calls for the physical harming of or discrimination against others based on any of these characteristics; and 3) intentional, targeted use of images or symbols that are equivalent to either of these examples. By contrast, reasoned and well-intentioned discussion or debate on matters related to any of these characteristics is not subject to restriction and, in appropriate settings, is encouraged.  

Of course, expression that is not even protected by the First Amendment — e.g., defamation, fighting words, true threats, incitement of imminent unlawful conduct, obscenity, speech that facilitates a crime — may also be restricted by the university. In addition, as a matter of policy and as a recipient of federal funding, Marquette will not allow expression that creates a hostile environment or constitutes discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or military status, or sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. See Harassment and Discrimination Policy; Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination Policy (rev’d Sep. 9, 2021); Non-discrimination Policy; see also Retaliation Policy; Student Conduct Code. 

Furthermore, one cannot use their own expression in a way that materially interferes with another’s free speech, with classroom teaching, or with official university events, or that violates the university’s policy on the acceptable use of university electronic resources.⁴    

Finally, in order to promote its own functioning, the university may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that may incidentally impact expression as long as they do not discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of that expression. See, e.g., UPP 6-11: Demonstration Policy (rev’d Feb. 13, 2020) (viewpoint-neutral, but does prohibit any demonstration or signage that “[f]ails to respect the human dignity” of others); Department, Faculty and Staff Speakers and Events Policy (approval pending) (viewpoint-neutral, with exceptions similar to this Free Expression Statement); Loudspeaker/Amplified Sound Policy; Student Organization Policies (covering event sponsorship, fundraising, and publicizing). 

In sum, the primary goal of any university restriction on expression, apart from that required by law, is to advance the intellectual, moral, and spiritual formation of community members, including the civil co-existence that is necessary for any healthy community or society. Accordingly, this statement should normally be implemented incrementally, beginning with dialogue, including an examination of whether or not a speaker’s expression is justified or otherwise grounded in facts and reason. To the extent that it is not, there is then an opportunity to enlighten the speaker, to guide their moral growth, and thereby to maintain their place within the university community.⁵ It will be the rare case that requires the strongest response. 

 

---

 

^{1. https://www.marquette.edu/about/mission.php; see also Ethos Statement, Student Conduct Code.  ↩}

^{2. https://www.marquette.edu/ca/2031/documents/strategic-plan-marquette-2031-web-2.pdf. ↩}

^{3. This statement represents the university’s current views on how best to synthesize the principles and values expressed herein. Accordingly, this statement is intended to inform, supplement, and supersede previously issued statements or policies. See infra at 2 for links to related statements and policies. ↩}

^{4. UPP 1-05: Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources (Jan. 22, 2016). Under this policy, for example, one may not use any component of the university’s IT system for “[p]olitical or lobbying activities not approved by the university's Office of Public Affairs.” ↩}

^{5. See Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, Annotation 22 (Presupposition) (“[I]t is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another’s statement than to condemn it as false. If an orthodox construction cannot be put on a proposition, the one who made it should be asked how he understands it. If he is in error, he should be corrected with all kindness. If this does not suffice, all appropriate means should be used to bring him to a correct interpretation, and so to defend the proposition from error.”); see also https://www.marquette.edu/student-development/policies/conduct-disciplinary-actions.php#positive_actions (“Positive actions are required activities intended to engage the student in a positive learning experience related to the student’s inappropriate behavior and allow students to reflect upon their inappropriate behavior, learn new information about the behavior in which they engaged and why it is inappropriate or unacceptable, and/or educate other students so they do not find themselves in similar circumstances.”). ]↩}