1. Western Michigan University
Taylor Berry
Elyse Hogan
Lehman Robinson

2. Intro to the Case An RSO hosted a forum with an outside speaker
The forum resulted in verbal and physical outbursts and campus safety became involved
The guidelines in place for outside speakers is brought into question
The committee must review the current guidelines and decide if they would like to change how they handle outside speakers on campus

3. Top Issues at Hand
The outside speaker caused a negative reaction in the crowd
University policies regarding outside speakers need to be reviewed
The university needs to ensure that they are using the proper resources for events

4. Current Guidelines at the University
General Guidelines
Administration recognize that the entire campus is a free speech area
In order for an outside speaker to speak on campus, an RSO only needs the approval of the Campus Activities Board (CAB)
Campus safety is in attendance of any events that involve outside speakers

5. Current Guidelines at the University
Application Submission Structure
Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) must fill out the generic application and turn it into the CAB with a brief description of the event
No other formal approval is needed to have an outside speaker

6. Proposed Guidelines at the University
Application Submission Restructure
Restructuring the Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) application process will give the opportunity for the RSO to become more reflective and intentional on speakers that are invited to campus and who may disrupt the campus community.
Proposed Application Submission Requirements
The RSO will now have to submit an extensive application that details learning outcomes of the event that are defined by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) as this event must align within one the six domains defined by CAS.

7. Proposed Guidelines at the University
Application Approval Restructure
Restructuring the Campus Activities Board approval process will give the chance for all involved campus units to assess whether or not the event can be held in a manner that complies with the university-wide Standard Practice Guides (SPGs).
By looking back at the SPGs, we can also create a committee that will look further into the assisting with specific departments and units developing their own policies as long as they are in compliances with the standard practices of the university.

8. Proposed Guidelines at the University
Proposed Application Approval Requirements
For events with outside speakers that may disrupt the learning environment of the campus community, the following approval process will occur. Students will need to submit documentation 60 days prior to ensure each Division of Student Affairs the proper time to make their decision. Students will then be notified if the request has been approved or denied based on reasons provided by the appropriate individuals.
Approval Process
Submit request to Campus Activities Board for initial approval.
Campus Activities Board Director will then assess if event would require additional approval.
If needed, University Risk Management and Director of Public Safety will then assess the request to determine if there are any risks/benefits associated with having this event and if public safety will have enough manpower to combat issues, shall they arise.

9. Learning Outcomes at the University
Students will be able to:
Analyze potential issues and problems that may arise by having their event
Practice good judgment after assessing the potential risks and benefits of having the event
Reflect on new information and determine if the event with continue.

10. Learning Outcomes at the University
Students will be able to:
Demonstrate an awareness and consideration of the campus community in their decision-making and participate in civic engagement.
Communicate effectively to University officials in a way that is coherent and clearly articulates their reasons for requesting an off-campus speaker that may be disrupt the campus community.

11. Learning Outcomes at the University
University Officials will be able to:
Engage in critical thinking as they identify important problems and issues while being aware of critical questions that could be raised.
Provide a clear decision that is based on complex information from sources including past and present issues on campus communities to form a decision but is willing to remain open to new ideas from the student organization.
Understand their role in social responsibility and their influence on the campus community by appropriately challenging the proposed events that are not conducive to the campus learning environment.

12. Theories to Support Proposed Guidelines
King and Kitchener Reflective Judgement Model
Reflective thinking includes considering context, relevant data, multiple viewpoints, and ability to justify beliefs (Evans et al, 2010)
Learning outcomes = challenge students to justify their beliefs by evaluating the purpose and value of the invited speaker
Risk/Benefit analysis = challenges students to consider context, relevant data, and multiple viewpoints that may factor into having the invited speaker on campus

13. Theories to Support Proposed Guidelines
Study of King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgement Model (Guthrie, King, and Palmer, 2002), as cited in Evans et al. (2010)
Found a relationship between reflective judgement and tolerance for diversity

14. We cannot prohibit students’ rights to invite controversial or intolerant speakers to campus, but we can encourage them to use reflective thinking/judgement, which in turn may increase their tolerance for diversity.

15. Sources
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., and Renn, K. A. (2010). Epistemological and intellectual development. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). (pp ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitstifer, D. I., (2012) CAS professional standards for higher education (8th ed.). Washington, D.C: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.