A threat to academic freedom and free speech: Chapman takes a stand

Photo Courtesy of The Panther Archives

Amid ongoing concerns about threats to academic freedom and free speech at Chapman, President Daniele Struppa signed a national statement taking a stand against the Trump administration and affirming the university’s commitment to open discourse. 

The statement, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement on America’s College Campuses,” was coordinated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Over 600 universities and colleges have signed the statement as of May 7, 2025. 

The top of the statement reads: “as leaders of America’s colleges, universities and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” 

This comes in response to the Trump administration’s threat to cut federal funding based on how schools responded to political speech and pro-Palestine demonstrations, more specifically, at universities where there were student encampments. 

Richard Ruppel, a Chapman professor and director of the general education program, said he was pleased by Struppa’s decision to sign the statement, calling it the right thing to do.

“This is the kind of thing that every university president needs to do, to join other university presidents, to bring us all together to oppose the assault on higher education that the Trump administration is engaging in,” Ruppel said. 

Peter Simi, professor of sociology, also said it was an important step in the right direction and that support for educators and students should not end there. 

“I applaud President Struppa’s recent decision to sign, along with hundreds of other university presidents, a statement supporting academic freedom, but I think we can do more,” Simi said. 

Struppa declined The Panther’s request for comment on his decision to sign the statement or if he plans on taking any further action.

Within Trump’s first month in office, higher education came under attack, with Columbia University among the first targeted.

Simi argued that universities and colleges across the country are increasingly fearful of becoming the next target.

“Not surprisingly, these threats and his actions so far are helping create a climate of fear; no university wants to be the next Columbia,” Simi said. 

The federal government has cut millions in funding to Columbia, despite the university implementing several reforms aimed at satisfying the Trump administration’s demands. 

Ruppel said Columbia University serves as a cautionary example of how universities should not respond to political pressure. 

“You have to stand up to bullies, or every day they will steal your lunch money,” Ruppel said. 

Ruppel said there is strength in numbers, and it's incumbent upon universities to stand together in resisting political pressure. 

“If the Ivy League had said that (you're not alone) immediately, the results would have been different,” he said. 

Earlier this year, Chapman was sent a letter from the Department of Education informing the institution that it was under investigation for antisemitism. 

While Struppa nor the university did not make a public statement regarding the letter, Struppa told The Panther he stands behind the institution's record of supporting Jewish students, faculty and staff both through words and action.

Ethan Weinberg, a senior business administration and economics double major, said the issue of free speech — and the act of protecting hateful speech that can endanger individuals — should not be considered free speech. 

“You should not be able to say things that are harmful to Jewish people,” he said. “There should be lines that are drawn.” 

He added that there were times when protests crossed that line. 

“I don’t think they do it intentionally, but they definitely have,” he said.

Weinberg said the university should have outlined clear limits at the start and clarified what speech can be allowed.

“Everything was a little too reactive instead of proactive,” he said. 

Struppa signing the national statement is a new shift Chapman has made since the fear of funding cuts and contentious protests first began. 

Ruppel said that for anyone to try to dictate or limit when professors can teach is not only a clear violation of academic freedom, but outright “stupid.”  

“That's the way government intervention in the arts in universities tends to be,” he said. “These are people who know much less about our world than we do, and they're trying to tell us what to do.”

Simi said that while many of the consequences are yet to be felt, within the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, there has been a detrimental impact on higher education. 

“We are seeing immediate impacts in terms of thousands of grant award terminations, including research related to life-or-death situations,” he said. 

Simi said Trump’s goal is to intimidate universities into eliminating programs like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or face “whole-sale cuts in federal funding.”

Chapman has recently reorganized the DEI department, which is something Ruppel says may be an attempt to obey demands in advance. 

“This is anticipatory obedience,” he said. 

Ruppel said he disagreed with preventive action. 

“You can't satisfy a bully in that way, by anticipating what the bully might want,” he said.

Carson Rudy, a senior political science major, said that while he supported pushback against DEI, he was skeptical of the federal government inserting itself into private institutions and university affairs. 

“That can become its own form of overreach,” he said. “Universities should have the freedom to develop their programs, and students should have the right to critique them from any political perspective.”

Chapman students protested the dismantling of the DEI department and more protections for international students, with the Chapman administration seeking disciplinary actions against five students for the use of amplified sound without permission. 

Ruppel said it is students’ right to protest, even if it is loud and rowdy. 

“Number one, protest can be effective. Number two, keep at it, because it's the right thing to do,” he said.

Weinberg said it is important for the administration to know what crosses the line and set the tone early on. 

At the beginning of the year, the DEI department rescinded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Service Award to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at the third annual awards ceremony, after Struppa sent an email to the school condemning the action. 

“It would be a lot better if the administration were all on the same page,” Weinberg said. “They don’t all have to agree with one side or the other, but be on the same page with how to deal with conflict and protests.”

Simi said Chapman needs to proactively protect open dialogue, which requires open communication. 

“That has not been happening at Chapman since January 20, 2025,” he said. 

Rudy said that while he did not believe political speech was being suppressed on campus, he said the rules and regulations are not always clearly enforced. 

“I think enforcement is mostly about following rules like permits or noise restrictions, not about the content of the message,” he said. “That said, it can sometimes feel inconsistent, like when Greek life uses amplified sound and no one seems to care.”

Ruppel said he hopes to see more unity from the professors, the university president, faculty governance and the board of trustees. 

“(Trump)’s not just attacking me and other faculty members who are teaching and who are doing research,” he said. “He is attacking the institution.”

Simi also said it is important for everyone to be on the same page and fight for the university’s core mission.

“We may not all agree with each other, but that begs the question of whether we believe in our own mission statement and other principles enshrined across campus and referenced on the Chapman University webpage,” Simi said.