By Knight Foundation, Democracy Fund and Google News Initiative

Access to accurate, fact-based news and information is critical for the well-being of individuals, communities and local government. As local news outlets face business challenges, philanthropy is helping fill gaps by supporting organizations who provide vital local information.

While tactics for providing this support may vary, many local news funders struggle to assess whether that community’s information environment is actually becoming healthier.

In response, the Google News Initiative, Democracy Fund and Knight Foundation commissioned Impact Architects to develop a framework and playbook to help communities assess the health of their local news ecosystems.

The new report “Healthy Local News & Information Ecosystems: A Diagnostic Framework,” presents an assessment approach tested and refined across nine U.S. communities of various sizes. Accompanying the report is a playbook designed as a tool to help funders and other community organizations evaluate strengths and opportunities in their locale.

While each local market presented unique conditions and challenges, this timely study found some common themes across communities:

• Communities with greater racial and ethnic diversity tended to have lower trust in journalism, suggesting stronger relationships among legacy media and communities of color are of crucial importance.
• Increasing access to news through collaboration and strong ecosystem backbone institutions can lead to higher trust in journalism, which in turn can lead to more community support for local news organizations.
• Greater news access can have a positive impact on voter turnout and resident satisfaction with their community.

Building on extensive existing research and incorporating perspectives from industry stakeholders, this project moves beyond documenting the presence or absence of news organizations (i.e., “news deserts”) to include a more holistic look at dimensions such as business models and staff composition. It includes easy ways to use existing, publicly available data to measure community members’ relationships with journalists. Ultimately, the playbook is designed as a “plug and play” solution to evaluate 35 indicators across three interconnected categories: news and information providers, community information needs, and the relationship between newsrooms and the community.

This new report includes case studies from the nine U.S. communities where Impact Architects applied the framework: Boulder County, Colo.; Charlotte, N. C.; Chicago; Detroit; Macon-Bibb County, Ga; New Mexico; Oakland, Calif.; Philadelphia; Youngstown, Ohio.

Insights from this effort reinforce the central role local news plays in the civic health of communities. They also show how local funders can use this framework to more effectively direct critical support for local news to areas of greatest potential impact. As new community initiatives are implemented, the framework can also be used over time to observe and assess progress toward healthier communities.

We look forward to seeing how funders, newsrooms and others use this framework to better understand and track the state of the local news ecosystem in their own communities.

Photo (top) by Matt Donders on Unsplash

Originally published on March 3, 2021 at kf.org.

A new tool to measure the health of local news ecosystems was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On September 22, 2020, Knight Foundation announced nearly $8M to support the expansion of public spaces in Akron. Click here to see the press release. Knight’s Kyle Kutuchief shares more below.

As Greater Akron navigates COVID-19, outdoor public spaces have taken on a new importance in daily life. All of us need more fresh air. Parks, trails and public spaces restore physical and mental health, make the city a more desirable place to live, build community and allow people to exercise their First Amendment rights. However, access to them is not equal, especially in Akron’s core. We know we must do better to make them more inclusive.

Today, Knight Foundation is proud to announce nearly $8 million in new grants to advance key projects in Akron to make the city a better and more equitable place to live. We seek to reimagine and expand projects underway at Summit Lake, Lock 3, Downtown Akron and our founder John S. Knight’s former home in West Akron. As Knight marks 70 years as a foundation founded in Akron, these investments build on a legacy of commitment to building Akron’s future.

Since 2016, Knight has supported Reimagining the Civic Commons, a national initiative to demonstrate how strategic investments in Akron’s civic assets can advance engagement, equity, environmental sustainability and economic development. The Akron Civic Commons team worked alongside neighborhood residents and community leaders in Downtown Akron, Ohio and Erie Canal Park and Summit Lake to co-create and implement improvements to public spaces along the Towpath Trail. Much of the work to date has been about building trust with residents and establishing new ways of working between community partners.

At Summit Lake, the Summit Lake Community Council, the City of Akron, Akron Civic Commons and neighborhood residents have created an impressive vision to develop 35 acres on the lake’s north shore. Some of the planned amenities include: a trail around the lake, a pavilion, a boardwalk, a place to rent kayaks and canoes. The new park seeks to become a destination public space for nearby residents from the Summit Lake and Kenmore neighborhoods, Towpath Trail users and the community at large. The City of Akron has committed $3 million to the $10 million project. Knight will commit $4 million to completing the fundraising campaign for the new park, which is on track to break ground in 2021.

Lock 3 is our city’s central park. It has been very successful as a special events venue that attracts crowds year-round. But people who live or work downtown know that it is not a place that invites everyday use such as eating your lunch, meeting up with friends, walking your dog or just relaxing. A team led by Olin Architects, the City of Akron, the Ohio and Erie Canalway Coalition and GPD Group have developed a beautiful plan to redesign Lock 3 by adding trees, walking paths and places to sit. These amenities will complement a new amphitheater and stage that can accommodate a crowd of up to 4,500. Phase one of the project is expected to cost about $8 million. If $6 million can be raised in commitments by 2024, Knight will provide the remaining $2 million to move the transformative project forward.

We all agree that downtown Akron must be a clean, safe and vibrant place where everyone feels invited and welcomed. Downtown Akron Partnership has been leading the way to achieve that, from their ambassadors on the streets, to their support for small businesses and planning partnership with Mayor Dan Horrigan and business leaders to execute the Vision Plan for Downtown. As Main Street reopens, the city needs an intermediary organization to coordinate stakeholders and ensure people choose the city center as a place to live, locate their businesses, shop, dine and have fun.

Knight has committed $1.35 million to support the Downtown Akron Partnership’s important mission. Part of the grant will fund Biederman Redevelopment Ventures to provide consulting support. Its founder Dan Biederman is the president of the 34th Street Partnership and Bryant Park Corporation in New York. We believe Akron will benefit from a team that advises some of the most successful public spaces in the country.

Finally, John S. Knight, a lifelong Akron resident, and his brother James L. Knight, began their newspaper company with the Akron Beacon-Journal. Between 1921 to 1929, “Jack” called a house at 400 South Portage Path home. To say it had fallen into disrepair would understate its distressed condition. The Summit County Land Bank has acquired the property and, with a $637,500 investment from Knight, will restore the home and make it their new headquarters.

The John S. Knight House will become another restored historic structure within a block of the Perkins Manson and John Brown House. The land bank’s work is critical to the revitalization of Summit County, especially Downtown Akron and its inner ring neighborhoods. This is an opportunity to restore a place of significance to the legacy of Jack Knight and to support an organization whose work advances Knight’s Akron strategy.

Through these major investments, we are focused on improving public places for all Akronites to enjoy and advancing organizations run by some of our community’s finest leaders. Knight and our community partners understand that relationships are built at the speed of trust, and we collectively put residents first because they are the heart and soul of our community. We believe our support for Akron today continues our long tradition of strengthening this great city and making it a place where everyone feels welcomed and included.

Kyle Kutuchief is Akron program director for Knight Foundation. Email him via kutuchief@knightfoundation.org and follow him on Twitter @KyleKutuchief.

Photo (top) by Tim Fitzwater.

Originally published on September 22, 2020 at kf.org.

• Knight Foundation invests $8 million to expand and make Akron public spaces more equitable
• Watch Akron grow
• Summit Metro Parks to reinvent two city parks, help build a more successful Akron with $785,000 from Knight Foundation
• Akron

The Power of Akron’s Public SpacesOn September 22, 2020, Knight Foundation announced nearly $8M to… was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Just months away from a historic presidential election being held amid a deadly pandemic, a national reckoning on race and an unprecedented economic collapse, young people — especially college students — could help decide who wins the White House.

A poll of 4,000 students, taken Aug. 9 to 12 and funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, “College Students, Voting and the COVID-19 Election,” offers the newest, best insights into what college students think about this unusual election, how they’re likely to cast a ballot, and whether they will trust the outcome. This poll was inspired by The 100 Million Project, a landmark study released in February that surveyed 12,000 persistent nonvoters in order to explore the underlying challenges of electoral participation.

The poll’s findings paint a stark picture: Most college students plan on voting, and they heavily prefer Joe Biden over President Trump. They favor mail-in voting, especially Democratic students, during a time when questions are being raised about the U.S. Postal Service’s ability to deliver ballots on time.

They also have major doubts about the legitimacy of the election and are likely to doubt the election’s outcome. By far, they say COVID-19 is the most serious issue facing America, but many feel they don’t have enough information about politics — especially women and voters of color.

Major findings from the August poll include:

• Most students — led by college women and Democrats — say they are “absolutely certain” they will vote this year. About seven in 10 (71%) students say they are absolutely certain they will vote in the upcoming election, with female students expressing greater certainty than their male counterparts by a margin of 10 points. Students who identify as Democrat are the most likely to be absolutely certain they will vote (81%), followed by Republicans (74%) and Independents (63%).

• Students lack confidence in the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Nearly half (49%) say it won’t be fair and open, and a majority (55%) say it will not be administered well. A full 81% say special interest groups have more influence over election outcomes than voters.
• Students — particularly women — are likely to doubt the results of the presidential election. Half say that problems at polling places such as long lines or broken voting machines would lead them to have major doubts about the fairness of the election; followed by evidence of foreign interference (48%); the election winner losing the popular vote (46%); and low voter turnout (46%) or if most voters cast ballots by mail (31%). And 74% will have major or minor doubts about the fairness of the election if it takes weeks to count.

• Students plan to vote for Joe Biden by a wide margin, but enthusiasm is low for both major candidates and their parties. A full 70% say they will vote for Biden, versus only 18% for President Trump. But only 49% have a favorable impression of Biden, versus 51% unfavorable; for Trump, those numbers are 19% and 81%, respectively. When it comes to the two major parties, male college students view both about equally negatively, while female students express much more positive views of the Democratic Party.
• Just over half of college students plan to vote by mail, with large partisan splits. The majority (63%) of Democratic students say they would prefer to vote by mail or absentee, compared to 31% of Republican students. Thirty nine percent of all students plan to vote in person.

• Students see COVID-19 as the main issue facing the United States. Nearly one in three say that the pandemic is the most serious issue facing the country today, beating all other issues by a wide margin. Students say they are following the news around COVID-19 much more closely than news about the 2020 election.

These findings on how students are likely to vote and how they’ll view the election’s legitimacy have massive implications for Nov. 3 and its aftermath. Altogether, they point to an election in which students know the stakes are high, one in which they plan to vote, and one in which they overwhelmingly favor Biden. Yet, at the same time, the report finds disturbing evidence that students are likely to question the legitimacy of the election, and that they already harbor doubts about how it’s being administered.

The poll was commissioned by the Knight Foundation conducted by College Pulse — a survey research and analytics company dedicated to understanding today’s college students — from Aug. 9 to 12. It surveyed a nationally representative sample of 4,000 students and is the most recent and comprehensive poll of students’ attitudes and behaviors in 2020.

This latest polling research builds on The 100 Million Project, a landmark survey of 12,000 American non-voters released in February that included a companion survey of 18 to 24-year-old eligible voters. At that time — pre-pandemic — only 59% of this young electorate group said they were “absolutely certain” they would vote in November, compared to the much higher 71% of college students who now say they will cast a ballot for president according to data from “College Students, Voting and the Covid-19 Election.”

Evette Alexander is a director of learning and impact at Knight Foundation. You can follow her on Twitter at @evettewashere.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Knight Foundation is a national foundation with strong local roots. We invest in journalism, in the arts, and in the success of cities where brothers John S. and James L. Knight once published newspapers. Our goal is to foster informed and engaged communities, which we believe are essential for a healthy democracy. For more, visit kf.org.

Image (top) by Morning Brew on Unsplash.

Originally published on Aug. 24, 2020 at kf.org.

• College Students, Voting and the COVID-19 Election
• Elections and Voting
• The 100 Million Project
• The 100 Million

2020 Poll: College students favor Biden and mail-in voting, but worry about election legitimacy was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Cities face an uncertain future in the wake of Covid-19. Some predict a new wave of urban flight as public health, employment and affordability challenges intersect with an upsurge in remote work and connectivity that allows for more mobility. A recent Harris poll revealed that 39% of city-dwellers are currently considering moving to a less dense community. Others say the crisis will spur a reimagination of social infrastructure and urban life together as innovative leaders start to look ahead, become more nimble and revisit city plans to build back better, more resilient communities.

As the pandemic causes us to evaluate where and how we live, understanding what connects people to place is more important than ever. But what exactly generates a real attachment to the community over the long term? What provides the stickiness or emotional and practical commitment to stay rooted in a community over time?

A landmark Knight Foundation report produced by Urban Institute surveyed over 11,000 Americans to explore this very topic, developing a rich and authoritative dataset on what drives community attachment across a diverse set of metro areas and demographic groups. The study reveals that the features of city life that most fuel attachment are essentially social in nature — such as cultural and recreational spaces — but enjoying a sense of public safety is a driver as well. Key findings shed light on why people stay in a city, and what cities can do to strengthen ties between residents and their local communities. Of the dozen urban amenities explored, arts and cultural activities stood out for its potential to boost various indicators of attachment, from higher feelings of satisfaction and personal fit with the city, to behaviors such as greater investment of time and resources in the community.

People with easy access to recreational areas (parks and other outdoor amenities) and safe places to work and play also reported stronger feelings of attachment and showed a preference for staying put. Attachment was also deeper for people who spent more time in the main city, as well as those who reported choosing the city for “quality of life” reasons versus those there for family or jobs.

However, the data also shows that while quality of life amenities matter more to residents of color and lower income groups, they report having more trouble accessing them. Investments in quality of life city amenities should consider any existing inequities and design approaches that address — and not exacerbate them.

Perhaps ironically, some of the things that foster deeper attachment to our cities are also among those most affected by the shutdown: access to museums, concerts, playgrounds, beaches, and to a general sense of safety, while out and about in our community. As social scientist and Knight Public Spaces Fellow Eric Klinenberg argues, investment in social infrastructure (including libraries and parks) is critical in revitalizing civic life and ultimately a resilient community during a crisis. The current pandemic is an opportunity for cities to lead with engagement and inclusivity as they consider redesigned versions of these amenities at the heart of city life.

Thoughtful communities will strive to rebuild in a way that is resident-driven, with community members at the table, particularly where quality of life amenities are scarce. In the Knight community of Philadelphia, listening to resident needs during the pandemic resulted in a simple solution: roping off “playstreets” in neighborhoods that lack outdoor recreational space to create it, while empowering neighbors to manage the program. This is just one of many creative solutions popping up as communities and residents work together to reimagine the shape of urban life. The time is now for American cities to focus on these questions if they are to successfully reopen and reinvent themselves as desirable cities of the future. Instead of reorienting our cities towards sprawling suburbs, this study suggests that providing equitable access to key quality of life amenities at the heart of communal life — while solving for safety — might be the new holy grail for post-pandemic community design.

Click here to view and download the full report.

Evette Alexander is a director of learning and impact at Knight Foundation and Lilly Weinberg is the program director for community foundations at Knight Foundation.

Originally published on May 20, 2020 at kf.org.

Community Ties: Understanding what attaches people to the place where they live

How cities thrive post-COVID: Building communities people want to live in was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

To better understand the attitudes of young people towards the First Amendment, a Gallup-Knight recent report surveyed 3,000 college students about their attitudes about freedom of expression. As a brown person who grew up in semi-rural Kansas (which is 85% white), the results are not surprising — it makes sense that college students’ views on the First Amendment and free speech vary based on gender, race and ethnicity. But there’s something missing in the analysis, and that’s an examination of how students from a rural background view these issues, versus students who grew up in diverse urban centers.

Urban-rural is not a proxy for liberal-conservative. But there are defining characteristics of rural communities, including lifestyle (rural residents are more likely to participate in their communities); economic well-being (rural residents are more likely to be in poverty and have lower salaries than their urban counterparts); and political affiliation (many residents of rural areas are registered Republicans even if their views may differ from the current administration).

As someone who grew up in Derby and Wichita, Kan., my willingness to express controversial views is likely more tempered than someone from an urban area, partly because of the nature of university life. Someone from a bigger area would probably be more confident to say what they think because they think their ideas would be validated. Anyone growing up in a rural area is raised with the idea that rural areas are on the fringes — so they are less likely to voice their opinions. Even more so if you’re a member of a minority group.

Until high school, my schooling had a mix of suburban and rural students — and not a lot of diversity. When I got to the University of Kansas, I found a divide that wasn’t exactly rich vs. poor or liberal vs. conservative. What I discovered, instead, was a divide based on how you grew up. Urban students dove right into the university experience, joining Greek life and all kinds of clubs. Rural students tended to not participate in those institutional activities. Each group not deliberately objecting to the other’s speech — but unsure of where their thoughts fit in with students from very different backgrounds. In areas with little formal institutional infrastructure, students can have a hard time making this transition and struggle to express their thoughts in a wider forum.

Most interactions between rural residents are on a smaller scale and the networks of acquiring and disseminating information are generally tighter-knit. The sizes of these communities are clear indicators of this, but so is the decline of local media.

A 2018 study by the University of North Carolina journalism school reported that since 2004, the nation has lost nearly 20% of their newspapers. Counties with no local news outlets are overwhelmingly rural, and state and regional newspapers no longer cover outlying areas. Students overwhelmingly stated that their discussions are shifting online. However, when nearly a quarter of rural residents lack basic broadband access, how can they be expected to keep up or contribute to the latest discourse? Strengthening local newsrooms and media outlets will allow for more informed discourse on college campuses as young adults from all regions of all identities flock to campuses.

How can colleges promote civility and healthy discussions on campus? The first step might be to see rurality as more than a tool for recruiting students. Administrators must concentrate efforts toward community building by encouraging rural students to join some of the groups and activities that define campus life — common book discussions or student organizations ranging from the student newspaper to community outreach organizations. While rural students have access to some of these institutional resources in their own communities, colleges rely on these activities to enrich student life rather than first establishing a core identity of belonging to the campus. Further, because they have more institutional resources and larger communities force people to form subgroups, urban students have had more opportunities to participate in those activities in high school, so it’s an easier transition.

Universities often approach students coming from rural communities as if they were from another country — come to our campus, abandon your foreign ways and absorb the urban experience. Instead, perhaps, colleges should take a cue from rural communities, where strong social ties through social institutions provide healthy, safe spaces for even challenging conversations. If more college students had those kinds of close connections that span gender, race and ethnicity, perhaps both rural and urban students would have a more equitable free speech experience on campus.

Sneha Verma is a junior at the University of Kansas and a former Knight Foundation intern.

Photo (top) by Victoria Heath on Unsplash. Originally published on May 5, 2020 at kf.org.

• The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students' Views of Free Expression
• Freedom of Expression
• Campus Speech 2020: New survey reveals college student views on free speech and inclusivity
• Free speech tensions include fear of what others might hear
• Colleges must better educate students on the value of free speech
• Universities must condemn hate speech without censorship
• Students are rejecting racist speech, not free speech

Free speech and the urban-rural divide on America’s college campuses was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Polls often have something to reinforce every point of view, and the latest study of campus attitudes on free speech from Knight Foundation and Gallup is no exception.

For those of us who believe the First Amendment is one of the most crucial building blocks of American democracy, it is encouraging to learn that almost nine out of 10 college students agree in the study that it protects “people like themselves.” And, in these deeply troubled times, it’s a bonus to hear that 81% of the Gallup-Knight sample say they support a campus environment where students are exposed to all types of speech, “even if offensive,” while 69% assert that “inclusion” is also “extremely important.”

On the other hand, it is disappointing, if not bewildering, to discover that 63% of those polled worry that the typical “campus climate” in the United States “deters free expression,” especially for self-described “conservative” students. Indeed, almost 60% support President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order last year threatening to cut off all federal aid to universities that do not respect and promote free speech as he defines it.

If things are so hopeful and idealistic, one might wonder, how can they, at the same time, be so bleak and gloomy?

After spending three years documenting challenges to First Amendment values in this country, across the political spectrum, for our Free Speech Project at Georgetown University, I think I have a partial, if somewhat prosaic, answer:

There are widely varying definitions of free speech in America today, and, as with so many endeavors, where you stand may depend on where you sit.

Some free speech purists, especially on the right, go after “snowflakes” in progressive circles and say it is high time they avoid so-called “safe spaces” and listen to personally offensive or abusive speech they don’t like. But a very large number of others, concentrated particularly on college campuses, draw the line on speech they feel fundamentally degrades, and actually denies the humanity of, members of certain minority groups.

Nowhere has this clash become more virulent these days than around the idea of white supremacy, which, sadly, seems to have experienced a pathetic but vicious revival. The curtain has been pulled back on old racist attitudes that have somehow gained new currency. With a wink and a dog whistle,Trump ostentatiously declared, at the time of the violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va. in the summer of 2017 — between white-supremacist, anti-Semitic demonstrators and their opponents — that there were “many fine people on both sides.”

Whether white supremacy emerges as a contorted appeal to an angry political base, a reminder of murderous domestic terrorism past and present, or a pseudo-intellectual precept, it stings and it inspires well-founded fear. If that is among the ideas that people of color have come to understand free speech protects, I can well imagine they might decide to opt out. No room there for 19th-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill’s noble talk of a “marketplace of ideas” in which the best ones win.

Some ideas lost out big time in that marketplace a long time ago; we fought a civil war in the 1860s and seemingly rejected institutionalized white supremacy and the way of life it represented. Strictly speaking, bigots may enjoy free speech rights like everyone else, but college students are making it clear they don’t care to listen. Hence, the finding that fully 88% of all students in the Gallup-Knight survey — not just minority students — declared that they favor the restriction by campus authorities of “using an offensive racial slur to refer to people of color.”

Meanwhile, students, like many other citizens, think that professional football player Colin Kaepernick, and those who emulate him, are justified in kneeling during the national anthem at public sporting events, in order to draw attention to the unjust treatment of disadvantaged minorities in America. Ironically, 72% of the respondents in the Gallup-Knight survey mistakenly believe that Kaepernick’s actions are legally protected as free speech, an issue that has not yet been ruled upon by the federal courts.

Does all this mean, as the survey seems to suggest, that a belief in free speech, on the one hand, and efforts at diversity and inclusion in American higher education, on the other, inevitably must come into conflict?

Not necessarily. On the contrary, they frequently reinforce each other on campus as in civil society. Free speech guarantees that marginalized voices will be heard, and diversity assures that speech will be more representative and meaningful. Overall, students of all stripes are rejecting not free speech but racist speech, and their elders would do well to learn from them.

Sanford J. Ungar, president emeritus of Goucher College, is director of the Knight-funded Free Speech Project at Georgetown University.

Photo (top) from Wallpaper Flare. Originally published May 5, 2020 at kf.org.

• The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students' Views of Free Expression
• Freedom of Expression
• Campus Speech 2020: New survey reveals college student views on free speech and inclusivity
• Free speech tensions include fear of what others might hear
• Colleges must better educate students on the value of free speech
• Universities must condemn hate speech without censorship
• Free speech and the urban-rural divide on America’s college campuses

Students are rejecting racist speech, not free speech was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On May 5, 2020, Gallup and Knight Foundation released a new report on college students and their attitudes about Free Speech. View the full report here.

No one likes to admit to being against free speech. Whether on the playground or in the elementary school classroom, the virtues of free speech as a quintessential American value are drummed into children from a young age. But beneath the surface of Americans’ professed fealty to the First Amendment and the ideals of free speech lurks a shaky understanding of what these freedoms entail, why they matter and what it means to actually defend them.

The Gallup-Knight 2020 survey on the attitudes of U.S. undergraduates reveals both a surface-level commitment to the idea of free speech, and underlying reservations about what the precept dictates in practice. Knight and Gallup undertook the survey to measure to what degree a rising generation understands its constitutional rights, and stands ready to defend them. The results reveal that students’ appreciation of the First Amendment is wide but shallow, with a series of questions and doubts lingering just beneath the surface.

These doubts reveal misgivings about whether robust defense of free speech can be reconciled with social justice values including equality, inclusion and protection for the vulnerable. To raise a new generation that appreciates and embraces First Amendment freedoms, it will be essential to bridge gaps of knowledge and explain how free speech principles can accommodate, and even reinforce, other progressive values.

First, the good news for free speech. Fully 68% of students surveyed described citizen’s free speech rights as “extremely important” to democracy. Eighty-one percent of students support a campus setting that involves exposure to all kinds of speech, including that which may be offensive. Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed believe colleges should not be empowered to restrict speech on the basis that it may be offensive or upsetting to particular groups. But other questions reveal students hedging about unfettered expression.

The survey found that growing majorities of college students think their universities should be able to restrict the use of racial slurs (78%, up from 69% in 2016 from the same survey) and prohibit costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups (71%, up from 63% in 2016). Seventy-six percent of respondents reported that efforts to foster diversity and inclusion come into conflict with free speech rights either frequently (27%) or occasionally (49%), with black students far more likely than whites to encounter such conflicts often.

The survey revealed that women were twice as likely as men (23% to 11%), and black students nearly twice as likely as white students (28% to 15%), to prefer that colleges protect students by barring certain types of speech rather than permitting all types of speech. A fast rising proportion of students — 38%, up from 25% in 2017 — reported having been personally uncomfortable because of something someone said on campus, most often a comment concerning race or gender.

Not surprisingly, the tensions between diversity, inclusion and open expression, likely alongside other factors, are leading students to conclude that their free speech rights are less than fully secure. Whereas, in 2016, 73% of students surveyed said they believe free speech rights are secure, that percentage had dropped to 59% by 2020. The proportion of students reporting that the climate on their campus deters students from speaking openly rose from 54% in 2016 to 63% this year. Students believe that those with conservative views are less able than others to express themselves openly on campus. Students also report encroachments on expressive rights online, both in the form of people blocking views with which they disagree and because people are afraid of being attacked or shamed by antagonists.

The juxtaposition revealed in the survey results between students who believe in the First Amendment, but also harbor serious concerns about the damaging impact of speech, reflects a larger tension manifest in society. As the United States comes to grips with the pernicious and entrenched legacies of racial and gender inequality, citizens have become more acutely aware of the potential for certain types of speech, including slurs, to inflict lasting harm both on targeted individuals and on the larger climate for inclusion and equality. For many, recognizing those harms leads to a question about whether it would not make sense to curtail speech rights — for example through a campus ban on racist speech or stereotyped costumes — in the name of protecting the vulnerable from hurt and discomfort.

In order to build on the survey’s positive findings with respect to overall belief in free speech, it is vital to confront students’ reservations about the harmful impact of speech and to explain how free speech and values of diversity, equity and inclusion can be reconciled. PEN America has devoted a series of reports and a Guide to Campus Free Speech to spelling out how these vitally important sets of principles can be brought into alignment. We advocate steps that include a robust approach to deterring and addressing hate speech, but through measures that do not involve censorship or retaliation.

We urge universities to embrace a dual role as forums charged with making space for the expression of the widest possible range of ideas, and as speakers in their own right that can defend institutional values, support targeted students and even decry and condemn offensive speech, as long as it is not forbidden or punished. We encourage efforts to foster awareness of the differential impact of particular types of speech on vulnerable groups and to instill conscientiousness in the use of language, so that voluntary restraint and taboos obviate the need for more coercive measures to foster a campus environment that is hospitable to all.

The Gallup-Knight survey reveals both the potential that exists, and the work that needs to be done, in order to foster a campus environment that is truly open to all people and all ideas.

Suzanne Nossel is CEO of PEN America, a human rights and free expression organization.

Photo (top) by Jason Leung on Unsplash. Originally published at kf.org.

• The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students' Views of Free Expression
• Freedom of Expression
• Campus Speech 2020: New survey reveals college student views on free speech and inclusivity
• Free speech tensions include fear of what others might hear
• Colleges must better educate students on the value of free speech
• Students are rejecting racist speech, not free speech
• Free speech and the urban-rural divide on America’s college campuses

Universities must condemn hate speech without censorship was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Are colleges and universities making progress in protecting students’ exercise of free speech and other First Amendment rights on campus? Despite an increase in concern about the issue in recent years — including a well-publicized executive order by President Trump that links federal funding to institutions’ agreeing to protect free speech — the recent Gallup-Knight First Amendment on Campus survey suggests that whatever campuses are doing to educate students about the First Amendment and their freedoms on campus isn’t working.

College students overwhelmingly say that they value free speech. When given the choice of whether it was more important to “protect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive” or to “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased,” 81% of students surveyed said they favored the latter.

Yet their understanding of the limits of this freedom are restrictive compared to those established by law. Similarly overwhelming majorities support speech restrictions on campus when it comes to the use of offensive racial slurs (78%) or costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups (71%). A far lower but still concerning 26% would even back restrictions on “expressing political views that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups,” despite the fact that this could be said of virtually any political view, depending on who’s listening. Other questions reveal other aspects of willingness to limit peers’ speech.

It’s natural to have doubts about the utility of offensive speech. Indeed, to restrict speech widely considered offensive is the norm in human history. Blasphemy laws protecting sacred gods and ideals date to ancient times and are still in place in many nations today. Many Western democracies also restrict some speech that offends, or that they believe impairs the dignity of individuals or groups, though hardly on the scale of what was once the norm.

Only the most stubborn ideologue, though, would argue that the enormous increase in prosperity and progress that has taken place since the Enlightenment-era expansion of human rights and freedom is just some kind of coincidence. As Frederick Douglass famously observed, in condemning the antebellum South’s restrictions on speech about slavery, the right to speak is “the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down.” Censorship and repression have massive costs.

The modern American college campus may well be the place where restrictions on speech are least justifiable. Every student is a high school graduate or equivalent; those with criminal backgrounds are routinely excluded from attending. A college’s core is a community of scholars, all highly educated, whose very jobs consist of the pursuit of knowledge in an environment of reason. Universities provide recreational activities and other amenities to make students feel comfortable and cared for, often including police forces, medical clinics, and counseling centers separate from those of the general public.

Through taxpayer subsidies and often astronomical tuition bills, America has generously given colleges all they need, and more, to teach students and advance knowledge through open debate and the sifting and winnowing of ideas. Unfortunately, colleges are squandering their opportunities to serve our nation in this way by doing far too little to explain to students why free speech and academic freedom are so important.

When controversies arise over speech, teaching, and even research, colleges all too often throw principles by the wayside and find a reason to punish the offending student or professor. As it happens, the lesson that speaking your conscience can get you in trouble is one students definitely are learning: in the Gallup-Knight survey, 63% of students agreed that the climate on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive, up from 54% in 2016.

Our students and our nation deserve better. Simple steps, such as eliminating unconstitutional or illiberal speech codes, making clear and principled statements in favor of free speech, and sticking to those principles when challenged, would cost nothing and make a big difference.

Efforts to educate students about the need for open discussion and academic freedom on campus — such as speakers, classes and orientation programs — would not cost much more. Colleges can and should make these changes now, so that the next Gallup-Knight poll has a chance to bring us some much-needed good news about the state of one of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms.

Robert Shibley is executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Photo (top) by StockSnap on Pixabay. Originally published at kf.org.

• The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students' Views of Free Expression
• Freedom of Expression
• Campus Speech 2020: New survey reveals college student views on free speech and inclusivity
• Free speech tensions include fear of what others might hear
• Universities must condemn hate speech without censorship
• Students are rejecting racist speech, not free speech
• Free speech and the urban-rural divide on America’s college campuses

Colleges must better educate students on the value of free speech was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Knight Foundation’s fascinating report about college students’ views of campus climate is a treasure trove of insights about the near future of free speech. Most of the seeming contradictions (for example, that 81% of students support a campus environment where students are exposed to all types of speech, yet 78% believe racial slurs should be banned) can be resolved with some nuance or justified flexibility of otherwise strong speech protections. But buried in the seeming trade-offs between the discomfort of underrepresented groups and the reticence of political conservatives are hints of something else.

The survey shows that students don’t seem worried that hateful or wrongheaded views will change their own beliefs as much as they worry that their peers will be affected. That lack of faith in other listeners is a threat to the core tenets of American free speech. Healthy discourse requires some amount of trust that others are able to sort out bad arguments and make good counter-arguments in the process.

The sociologist W. Phillips Davison coined the term “third-person effect” to describe the presumption — the fear, really — that others will be more negatively influenced by communications than you will. And over several decades, a mountain of evidence has accumulated that supports the theory. Most people believe that others spend more time on Facebook and are more psychologically damaged than they are, and that others are more duped and more negatively influenced by rap lyrics, violent video games, advertising and political campaigns too. This, rather than direct feelings of threat and harm, may explain why students have a tolerance for censorship through both social pressure and official university policy.

Figure 9 of the Gallup-Knight report provides the most direct evidence that third-person effects play a significant role in campus culture. Seventy-eight percent of students reported that they do a good job of seeking out and listening to viewpoints different from their own, but only 45% reported that other students at their college did a good job. More students feel they are more discerning listeners compared to their fellow students.

There is another clue in the responses related to social media. More than half of the students agreed that social media stifles free expression because too many people block views they disagree with, yet 68% of students believe social media companies should aggressively remove posts that violate their standards for appropriate content. Students trust the content standards of Facebook more than they trust the standards of each other.

This suggests that perhaps, when 38% of students reported that they have felt uncomfortable about something that was said in reference to their identity group, the discomfort was not the loss of kinship and safety they felt about the speaker, but rather the lack of trust they have in other listeners. Surely this must be part of the explanation for the shocking 32% of student Democrats who favor restrictions on the expression of political views. Fear of the persuasion of others lurks in these data. The First Amendment has placed a bet that individuals will sift through facts and arguments not perfectly — nowhere near perfectly — but well enough. More importantly, free circulation of ideas is superior to the suppression of honest disagreement except in unusual circumstances. While reasonable minds will debate, forever, about the bounds of those “unusual circumstances,” a university campus populated with students that come prepared with what Hugo Mercier calls “vigilant open-mindedness” is not one of them.

Jane Bambauer is a professor of law at the University of Arizona.

Photo (top) by Philippe Bout on Unsplash. Originally published on May 5, 2020 at kf.org.

• The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students' Views of Free Expression
• Freedom of Expression
• Campus Speech 2020: New survey reveals college student views on free speech and inclusivity
• Colleges must better educate students on the value of free speech
• Universities must condemn hate speech without censorship
• Students are rejecting racist speech, not free speech
• Free speech and the urban-rural divide on America’s college campuses

Free speech tensions include fear of what others might hear was originally published in Informed and Engaged on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.