# data[].attributes.body
Upon the completion of the academic advising certificate, I hope to be employed as a college student affairs staff member in admissions or academic advisor for first year students.

# data[].attributes.body
The ethical issue that I will be focusing on is inclusion and freedom of expression. Diversity amongst students is a great strength for any university. I want to focus on this issue because instead of it building students up and bring them together, the topic of inclusion or diversity is often shoved to the side as a negative way for students to express themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
The article informs us of a female born transgender student who was denied the right to use the males bathroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rulings trend against emerging Trump position

Two recent federal court rulings add to the growing body of decisions that find legal protections for transgender students in federal antidiscrimination laws and that run counter to the views emerging from President Donald Trump's administration on the issue.

In late May, a federal appeals court refused to block a Pennsylvania school district's policy of permitting transgender students to use the restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. One unusual aspect of the case involving the Boyertown Area School District is that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled unanimously from the bench, about a half hour after hearing oral arguments on May 24, to reject an injunction sought by a group of students who contend the district's pro-transgender policy harms their privacy.

The court issued a brief written order the same day stating that a formal opinion would follow but that it was embracing the reasoning of the federal district judge in the case, who had rejected the privacy arguments of the students opposing the Boyertown district's transgender-inclusive policy.

Earlier that week, on May 22, a federal district judge in Virginia ruled in favor of a female-born transgender teenager, Gavin Grimm, who challenged his school district's policy of barring him from using the restrooms for males.

"This court joins [other federal district and appellate courts] in concluding that claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable under a gender stereotyping theory under Title IX" of the Education Amendments of 1972, said the decision by U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of Norfolk, Va., in the case involving the Gloucester County, Va., school district.

The judge also found that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law applied to transgender students.

"Since the new administration came into office in 2017 and began revoking guidance [on transgender legal protections under Title IX], court after court has held that the statute itself protects trans people and LGB [lesbian, gay, and bisexual] people from discrimination, and that you don't need that agency guidance," said Joshua A. Block, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBT and HIV Project, who represents Grimm.

Seeking Further Clarification

The Trump administration did not file briefs in the Boyertown or Gloucester County cases (nor in other pending transgender cases). But a range of actions since Trump took office in January 2017 have fueled the view that the administration does not support an interpretation of Title IX that covers transgender discrimination.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told a House education committee hearing on May 22 that court precedent was mixed on the issue of legal protections for transgender students and that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress had settled the question.

"That is not an area where law has been clarified," DeVos said. "I am not going to make up law from the Department of Education."

In early 2017, the Trump administration rescinded Education Department guidance issued under President Barack Obama that interpreted the department's Title IX regulations to require schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This past February, the department indicated that its office for civil rights will no longer investigate complaints from transgender students related to restroom discrimination.

However, DeVos has repeatedly said that all students, including transgender students, deserve protection from bullying and unfair treatment in schools.

While the Trump administration has not yet fully formalized its views on the protection of transgender students under Title IX, there are other clues about the direction it is headed.

Wave of Rulings

Just as there has been much litigation over Title IX and transgender students in recent years, there has been a wave of lower court rulings interpreting the protection against sex discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover cases of bias against gay workers.

In a case involving a gay employee of a New York state skydiving company who alleged discrimination by his employer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, ruled in February that "sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination."

The U.S. Department of Justice under Trump filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not sex-based bias covered by Title VII.

"An employer who discriminates based on sexual orientation alone does not treat similarly situated employees differently but for their sex," the administration's brief argued. "Gay men and women are treated the same, and straight men and women are treated the same."

The skydiving company on May 30 filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The legal analysis of sex discrimination in Title VII has been influential for those courts that have ruled on Title IX and transgender students as well.

In ruling in the Grimm case in May, Judge Wright cited Title VII more than 20 times as she held that Title IX prohibition against discrimination "based on sex" in federally funded education programs encompasses bias against transgender students.

"Allegations of gender stereotyping are cognizable Title VII sex discrimination claims and, by extension, cognizable Title IX sex discrimination claims," Wright said.

The ACLU's Block said that while Wright's decision clears the way for a trial in Grimm's case, the main issue of dispute between the parties is the legal question that the judge decided-that Title IX protects transgender students against discrimination.

While Grimm's case is an example of a transgender student challenging what he views as an oppressive school policy, the Pennsylvania case is an example of the main other type of lawsuit in this area: one brought by students claiming that pro-transgender school policies harm their privacy to use facilities among peers of their same birth gender.

"Sex in federal law has always referred to the biological difference between men and women," said Christiana Holcomb, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal organization that backs several student privacy lawsuits around the country. "Those courts that have ruled to the contrary are out of step with the plain meaning of Title IX."

Holcomb and the ADF are representing four students in the Boyertown district who object to a policy, adopted during the 2016-17 school year, of allowing transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

In court papers, the ADF argued that the school district's policy favored "a subjective continuum of genders" that "eliminates the law's longstanding respect for the anatomical differences between the sexes."

"We're trying to protect the privacy rights of every student, including transgender students and our clients," said Holcomb. "School districts have a duty to protect the privacy and dignity of everyone in their schools."

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group based in Washington, said "the trends in the courts are absolutely clear: They are ruling again and again with us."

"School districts have to deal with the reality that trans students exist," she said. "They have to operate within the reality that there is a Title IX, and it's very, very clear based on decision after decision that trans people are covered by it. Most schools are doing the right thing."

Published in Print: June 6, 2018, as Courts Take Expansive View In Transgender-Rights Cases

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Courts Take Expansive View in Transgender-Rights Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two recent federal court rulings add to the growing body of decisions that find legal protections for transgender students in federal antidiscrimination laws and that run counter to the views emerging from President Donald Trump's administration on the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses the stand that institutions are taking to protect college women and the variety of sexual misconduct between students and professors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seven years after the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance for institutions on relationships between professors and college students, increasing awareness about sexual harassment and assault as powered by the #MeToo movement has many institutions looking to make those standards more stringent, according to Inside Higher Ed .

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania and Syracuse, Cornell, Columbia and Duke universities banned dating between professors and undergraduate students this year, without regard for if a supervisory role is present between the two people. The new policies take their cues from a 2014 amendment to faculty member-student dating policy at Northwestern University , which spells out the inherent threat of controversy in these types of consensual relationships.

The emerging policies aren't without critics. Inside Higher Ed quoted experts who said that the policies are difficult to enforce because they require one party to disclose the relationship, and thus out the couple as in violation of policy. Others say the costs for legal recourse against violations, up to $250,000 according to one quoted average, are prohibitive to enforcement. And some say blanket policies infringe on individual rights of consenting adults. University of Manitoba applied philosophy professor Neil McArthur wrote last year "...adults have a fundamental right to engage in intimate relationships without interference."

In the same ways that legal action against faculty member-student dating prohibitions can be costly, they pale in comparison to the legal fees, public relations hits and tuition dips an institution can take if exposed for having a rampant culture of policy breaking or sexual harassment and assault against students. Michigan State University is paying a heavy price for an institutional culture that, while it spoke to specific elements about prohibited behavior and the power of reporting, did not yield strong results in the case of women being assaulted by Larry Nassar, a former university doctor, or the pursuit of allegations against sexual assault claims made against student-athletes.

Institutions that take a proactive stand in prohibiting dating relationships add another element of institutional protection against accusations of lax culture and allowance of bad and unlawful behavior. When combined with strong messaging about the dangers and consequences of this behavior, it can underscore institutions' commitment to student protections. And that's something that will be a critical part of universities' and colleges' abilities to answer protests, media coverage and lawsuits associated with future harassment and assault claims that could be headed towards new precedents in institutional liability according to recent rulings on student safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colleges strengthen professor-student relationship rules in midst of #MeToo movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven years after the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance for institutions on relationships between professors and college students, increasing awareness about sexual harassment and assault as powered by the #MeToo movement has many institutions looking to make those standards more stringent, according to Inside Higher Ed .

# data[].attributes.headline
Freedom of Expression and Inclusion Coexisting

# data[].attributes.subject
Freedom of Expression and Inclusion Coexisting

# data[].attributes.body
Zalaznick suggest that comparing inclusion and free speech is like asking "Would you rather have a heart or lungs? and coming out with a press release saying people prefer lungs". Inclusion and diversity is what students want. They want the chance to have more diversity on campus' and allowing students to be who they are, however with the increase in inclusion, there has been a decrease in the acceptance of expression. Students have decreased from 78 to 70 percent of the types of speech supported. The decrease in the acceptance of free speech has decreased because of the hate messages, and slander that is expressed through social media, across campus, and amongst students (Zalaznick, 2018).

Students find the importance of diversity and often would rather have a safe and compatible environment rather than protecting negative comments protected under free speech. Although many of political or negative comments about any particular race, religion, and others is on social media, not directly on the campus. However, many institutions are taking the initiative to implement talking about the concerns and challenges that come with free speech and inclusion. There have been failed attempts of debate and open forums to help start a conversation amongst different organizations and groups. Wolf believes that because so many students are concerned of speaking up for others and creating this environment shows the potential of our future leaders and the platform they will give to all. Wolf believes that students will be the future leaders "talking societywide about the strength of our democracy, and [the] huge opportunity for universities to show leadership in addition to having to react to challenging situations" (Wolf, 2018).

Diversity is the future, inclusion is the future, and helping students express themselves is the future. Educators have to find ways to enhance the conversation of political issues, and the feelings of others in an appropriate manner. Creating initiatives for this purpose will help these students become great leaders, and show the world how to express themselves without leading into negative outcomes. The legal and ethical issues mentioned throughout these articles is the legality of free speech. Every person has the right to say whatever they feel necessary, however this could cause others to feel negatively, or could hurt their future on how they many feel about themselves because of what they are being told. Ethically every person should feel comfortable in their own skin, and feel comfortable speaking their truth without being judged or creating a problem. Students are often pushed to talk about their feelings to create a conversation on how to better themselves. As an advisor, I hope that I will be able to give them the platform that will start the conversation. The conversation may only start with an advisor and a student, but this could give the students the opportunity to take the conversation outside of my office, and into the campus. Showing that the students can reflect their emotions and be able to converse amongst the other students to find the answers they may be looking for! Student should feel comfortable speaking not only with their advisor, but with their peers, along with faculty and staff members.

Resources
Wolf, J. (2018) Students say diversity is more important that free speech. InsideHigherEd. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/12/students-value-diversity-inclusion-more-free-expression-study-says

Zalaznick, M. (2018). Free speech and inclusion can coexist: Survey shows students value diversity - and the First Amendment. University Business, 21(5), 10-11.

# data[].attributes.headline
NACADA: DOING THE RIGHT THING IN ADVISING

# data[].attributes.subject
NACADA: DOING THE RIGHT THING IN ADVISING

# data[].attributes.body
Although advisors may know the definitions of ethics, integrity, and morals there are still go to be dilemmas that they will face in making decisions for their students. One of the decision-making tools mentioned in the article is to practice "altruistic behavior" so that the advisors are unselfishly serving their students. Remaining confidentiality while creating specific decisions for others is most important while gaining the students trust. While having the students' trust advisors will have a better chance of what will work for the students the best.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erica R. Compton, College of Western Idaho
Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.
Advisor Responsibilities and Roles
This article will explore the meanings behind ethics, morals, and integrity and will illuminate the responsibilities of academic advisors as they relate to integrity. A set of boundaries in decision-making will be introduced that will enable readers to cognitively evaluate their own decisions within the parameters of integrity.

As advisors, we carry an immense amount of responsibility on our shoulders. Not only do we have a responsibility for ourselves, but according to NACADA's statement of core values (NACADA, 2005), we also have a responsibility to our institutions, advisees, and peers. In addition, we have a responsibility to our profession, our educational community, and higher education in general.

This burden of responsibility is carried through the different roles that we, as advisors, assume as we tend to wear many hats. First, we are educators; expected to create and foster learning opportunities for students. We may also be a confidant, a safe place for a student. Through the role of cheerleader, we encourage confidence and are advocates. We act as facilitators between institutional departments and community services, as gatekeepers of knowledge, and as enforcers of policy and procedures. Trust in our professional judgment is also given to us as we assume the roles of institutional spokespersons, appointed stewards, and public servants. Lastly, one of the most important roles that we assume is that of role model and leader.

As we assume roles and transition between them, who is watching what we do, and how we behave, conduct business, and interact with others? Advisees are privy to our counsel but peers, faculty, staff, administration, and community members all witness our behavior. Part of being trusted as an institutional representative and spokesperson is that every action is being observed.

This is a tall order because individuals do not rely on advice from people they do not trust, "as such, ethical behavior and ethical decision-making are expected" (Landon, 2007) of us as academic advisors. Regardless of the situation, we must be able to conduct our professional duties and roles with integrity.
Morals
As a role model, a person with integrity receives the highest regard. However, what is integrity? Is it more than just doing what is right when no one is looking? How does it differ from ethics and morals? Although these three terms have varying degrees of similarity, a better understanding will assist us in ensuring integrity is a component of the many roles we assume.
Ethics
Morals are traits that can be considered either inappropriate or appropriate; what is it that people aspire to? Morals have tended to be time-honored principles such as valor, honesty, justice, compassion, peace, responsibility, respect, wisdom, and generosity (Ianinska, 2013, p. 7). In recent research conducted by Rushworth Kidder (2006), honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, and fairness have been the most common traits associated with the most respected and admired moral values (p. 43).

Although the word ethics has been used interchangeably with morals, ethics is more or less the study of, or theories of, moral principles (Ianinska, 2013, p. 8). If morals are the traits that one aspires to, then ethics are the guiding philosophy behind them. Ethics are not static and may adapt and change over time. For instance, Aristotle held reason in the highest regard, whereas contemporary ethics may be more concerned with good habits (Ianinska, 2013, p. 9).
Integrity
Ethics is the guiding light which assists individuals in the decision-making process. It is important to note that "acting (doing) does not always require thinking about the act, but ethics always involves thinking about and evaluating how to act to achieve the best possible outcome" (Frank, 2000, p. 45). If an individual were driving a car, morals would be the components of the car and ethics would be the actual thinking about the choices that come along on the road... to go left, to go right, how to maneuver, and so on.

Not unrelated to either morals or ethics is integrity. According to Merriam-Webster (2013), integrity is the "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values." It may be easier to identify someone with integrity than to define the word itself.

The definition provided by Merriam-Webster is an intimidating one to dissect, but the firm adherence mentioned refers to consistency. Regardless of the situation, a person's decisions and actions are consistent and are embedded within a moral code of conduct and ethical obligations. Integrity can be taken even further than just consistency. As Steven Carter (2000, p. 7) asserts, integrity encompasses these three components:
Dilemma

Discern. To have integrity one must be able to think for oneself.

Act on it. Although it is fairly easy to know what is right or wrong, it is harder to act upon it.

Own it. Beyond being able to do the unpopular thing, it is also being able to explain and defend the actions and reason behind those actions.

Even with the understanding of ethics, morals, and integrity, we as advisors are still confronted with dilemmas and uncertainty that come with making decisions. Conflicts occur when competing roles clash; this may be between our personal morals and beliefs, or between the different roles we assume as professionals. Making the best decisions in these dilemmas is critical as "leadership is a moral act infused with a vision and commitment to action. Every action taken - or not taken - conveys information about the values of the leadership" (Wilcox & Ebbs, 1992, p. 29).

For instance, if the institution has an unwritten policy regarding the deadline of accepting a Withdrawal Form by the close of business, we have an obligation in our role as enforcer to uphold this unwritten policy. However, our role of cheerleader may come into conflict with the enforcer roll if we receive this form from a student we regularly work with as we make our way to the car at the end of the day. What role trumps in the situation... enforcer or cheerleader?
Decision-Making
As noted in the example, dilemmas make it hard for decisions to be made and there is uncertainty about what to do. How do we know when to do the right thing, versus just doing things right? In the big scheme of things, "the rest of what we think matters very little if we lack essential integrity, the courage of convictions, the willingness to act and speak in behalf of what we know to be right" (Carter, 2007, p. 7).

Although not a cut-and-dried process, ethical decision-making should be a cognitive and conscious effort, especially when the right decision is not easily evident. These steps may allow enough reflection in which the best course of action should emerge.

Identify personal morals. Identify what is important and what aspirations are being sought. To know where to go, we must first know where we are. Find the motto that will act as an orientations (Something that my father taught me; Do the right thing, not just do things right).

Attempt to minimize harm; do no harm. When looking at the options in the dilemma, is one particular decision going to cause more harm than the other? What is the potential for injury in any given path?

Practice altruistic behavior. As advisors, we should adopt an unselfish desire to serve others, including respecting others' privacy, practicing fairness, and attempting to be consistent.

Look to the mission statement. What are the values and vision that our institutions strive to uphold? Do these institutions or departments have mission statements that we can refer to in aligning the situation for a better orientation?

S-O-S. Know when to bring others into the dilemma while maintaining the confidentiality of the situation. Collaborating with others and asking for help is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of leadership.

Attempt to find balance. For everything that we do, or do not do, there is a ripple effect. You can't do just one thing.

Stand by the decision. Once we have acted upon the decision, we must be able to stand by our choice and know that we did the right thing and acted with integrity.

Integrity begins with us. As role models, "there is no better model than for students to see their advisors acting in principled ways, solving problems and basing decision on values. In this way, students can learn how to think and solve problems ethically as well" (Frank, 2000, p. 49). As everyone is a work in progress, being cognizant of the decisions that we routinely face and knowing that what we do, or fail to do, is a reflection of the roles we assume, it is essential to make decisions with integrity.
References
Erica R. Compton
Advisor, Student Enrichment
College of Western Idaho
ericacompton@cwidaho.cc

Carter, S. (2007). Integrity. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Covey, S. R. (1989, December). Moral compassing. Franklin Covey. Retrieved from http://www.franklincovey.ca/FCCAWeb/aspx/library_articles_gen5.htm

Frank, K.S. (2000). Ethical considerations and obligations. In V.N. Gordon & W.R. Habley (Eds.), Academic Advising, A Comprehensive Handbook (44-57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ianinska, S. & Garcia-Zamor, J. (2006). Morals, ethics, and integrity: How codes of conduct contribute to ethical adult education practice. Springer Science 6, 3-20.

Kidder, R.M. (2006). Moral Courage. New York, NY: Harper.

Landon, P.A. (2007). Advising ethics and decisions. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Ethics-and-decisions.aspx

Merriam-Webster (2013). Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

NACADA. (2005). NACADA statement of core values of academic advising. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Website: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Core-values-of-academic-advising.aspx

Wilcox, J.R. & Ebbs, S.L. (1992). The Leadership Compass: Values and Ethics in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Cite this article using APA style as: Compton, E.R. (2014, March). Doing the right thing: Integrity in advising. Academic Advising Today, 37(1). Retrieved from [insert url here]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doing the Right Thing: Integrity in Advising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erica R. Compton , College of Western Idaho Ethics in academic advising has been widely addressed in the higher education field, with authors arguing that all advisors should behave in an ethical manner. However, most literature does not explicitly address issues of integrity as related to the academic advisor.

# data[].attributes.body
Diversity and Inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College students value a diverse and inclusive environment more than free speech rights, according to a new study on student attitudes on free expression.

The report from Gallup and the Knight Foundation comes at a turbulent time on college campuses nationwide, where students have challenged the principles of the First Amendment -- they have called for controversial campus speakers to be disinvited, and when they disagree with speakers' message, have shouted them down. They've also called for administrators to invest more in diversity initiatives and are demanding clear statements from them against speech they deem hateful.

Asked to select which is more important, about 53 percent of the students interviewed for the study picked diversity, versus 46 percent who chose free speech. This data is based on telephone interviews with 3,014 traditional-age students (18 to 24) at 100 four-year institutions, both public and private.

When the authors broke down the data further, they provided a clear picture of what certain campus demographics prioritize. About 61 percent of men favored free speech rights far more than a diverse and inclusive campus (39 percent). Conversely, 64 percent of women believe that diversity is more important, versus 35 percent who picked free speech.

Differences emerge with race, too. White students tended to value free speech more -- 52 percent compared to 47 percent who picked diversity and inclusion. About 68 percent of black students, meanwhile, said diversity was more important compared to 31 percent for free speech.

"We are seeing increasingly diverse campuses, much more diverse than they would have been a generation ago," said Sam Gill, the Knight Foundation's vice president for communities and impact.

Thus, Gill said, universities and their leaders are finding themselves adjusting to the demands of contemporary students -- creating new jobs and offices that fill students' calls for diversity.

The foundation and Gallup (which partners with Inside Higher Ed in sponsoring events and publishing other reports) conducted a similar survey in 2016 and found similar results, though in this round they found students continue to skew more in favor of protecting diversity than free speech.

For instance, in 2016, about 22 percent of students reported wanting "a positive environment" if it meant certain speech, even that which is hateful but legally protected, was prohibited. In this year's study, that number rose seven percentage points.

But what was most striking to Brandon Busteed, executive director of Gallup's higher education division, was how much students appeared to be critical of social media, despite its proliferation in their lives.

Roughly 57 percent of students thought that debate on political and social issues took place online rather than in person at their colleges (43 percent).

Despite the popularity of online platforms, though, students reported social media tended to stifle free speech in many ways. About 60 percent of students indicated that too many people block others online with whom they disagree -- this is up 12 percentage points from 2016.

About 59 percent of students said people feared being attacked online for their views, an uptick of 10 percentage points from 2016. And 83 percent of students said that it is too easy for anonymous users to post online.

Colleges have struggled to compete as the forum for debate and discussion in a digital age, when the conversation has turned online, Busteed said. Institutions must reclaim the debates and create productive campus talks, he said.

Busteed noted that campuses don't always successfully publicize some of these initiatives. As his survey notes, students aren't always aware of the campus opportunities or policies (such as whether a campus speech code exists).

"If we're really embracing it, we've got to communicate what we're doing," he said.

Previous research into students' beliefs on free expression found even when they respected the ideals of the First Amendment in theory, they did not always want to follow them in practice. Students also were unsure of the protections the First Amendment offered, with many believing that it did not allow for hate speech (even though it often does).

This also came through in the Gallup/Knight report, with 64 percent of students believing that the First Amendment shouldn't protect hate speech. About 70 percent of students said that campuses should restrict certain slurs, and 30 percent believe they should prohibit some politically oriented speech.

Gill said that while students should learn about the intricacies of the constitution and receive a civic education, more importantly, students "are taking to a new level" the debate around the First Amendment. Over time, exceptions have been added to free speech law -- fighting words, not being able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater -- and he said he believes this generation will be at the forefront of conversations around this evolving issue.

"There is a much more profound conversation going on about how free expression figures into our democracy," Gill said. We're going to have a much more educated group lead into that conversation. We're talking societywide about the strength of our democracy, and this is a huge opportunity for universities to show leadership in addition to having to react to challenging situations."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students value diversity, inclusion more than free expression, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College students value a diverse and inclusive environment more than free speech rights, according to a new study on student attitudes on free expression. The report from Gallup and the Knight Foundation comes at a turbulent time on college campuses nationwide, where students have challenged the principles of the First Amendment -- they have called for controversial campus speakers to be disinvited, and when they disagree with speakers' message, have shouted them down.

# data[].attributes.headline
ACE: Inclusion and Freedom of Expression

# data[].attributes.subject
ACE: Inclusion and Freedom of Expression

# data[].attributes.body
Over the years inclusion and freedom of expression have been working against each other instead of mutually working towards the same goal. Within this ethical issue the advisors help students find a better understanding and the challenges that come with free expression, create a place for student government and other stakeholders create a inclusive campus that works together towards inclusion instead of apart, and shifting the conversation of free expression into action. While helping students take action in creating an inclusive and free expression campuses gives students the opportunity to use their challenges, and learning outcomes for their future occupations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inclusion and Freedom of Expression

Recent events-nationwide and on college campuses alike-have too often pitted values of diversity, inclusion, and freedom of expression against each other, when in fact they should be mutually reinforcing. While college students believe in the principles of the First Amendment, many are willing to entertain restrictions when they see conflicts with other values and beliefs. Caught in the crosshairs are university leaders who want to do right by their communities such that all voices are heard, without letting deep divisions negatively affect the student experience or compromise the learning environment.

Our work in this space is three-fold, as we seek to:

provide a platform for higher education leaders to exchange ideas and best practices to build awareness and understanding of the opportunities and challenges in balancing free expression and campus inclusion.

create an environment in which college presidents and other stakeholders can work together to build an ecosystem where inclusion and freedom of expression are complementary, rather than adversarial.

shift from conversation to action, ultimately empowering presidents to create positive change on behalf of their students, their campuses, and their surrounding communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inclusion and Freedom of Expression Recent events-nationwide and on college campuses alike-have too often pitted values of diversity, inclusion, and freedom of expression against each other, when in fact they should be mutually reinforcing. While college students believe in the principles of the First Amendment, many are willing to entertain restrictions when they see conflicts with other values and beliefs.