Student Activism and Disrupting the Status Quo

• In Event: Assaultive Speech On-Campus and Insufficient Campus Responses: Now It's Time for Meaningful Change

Abstract

Student activism is not new. There are, however, renewed calls to theorize and study campus activism using a critical lens (e.g., Linder, 2019; Linder et al, 2020; Morgan & Davis, 2019; Rhoads, 2016). Increased student activism, use of social media, identity-based activism, and ultimately the potential to transform institutions undergird the need for more critical scholarship. This paper seeks to add to our understanding of student activism by using a critical lens to analyze how the federal courts promote (or act as institutional gatekeepers) to student activism.
What is student activism? Recent scholarship has grappled with defining student activism. Recognizing that the extant literature did not define student activism, Cabrera et al (2017) theorized ten premises as a way to operationalize “activism v slacktivism.” While some of the premises focus on social media or what it means to be an activist, several of the premises help to critically theorize student activism. For example, “Premise 1: Student activism involves an intentional, sustained connection to a larger collective” (p. 404) and “Premise 2: Student activism involves developing and exercising power” (p. 405) center the collective nature of activism and the exercise of power. According to the authors, the need for a vision of social progress and the hope to achieve it are also core components. To further unpack the definition, Linder (2019) notes in their work that “generally speaking, activism refers to the commitment of transforming systems for comprehensive social change. Activism is a process, not an outcome or a goal, and the very nature of activism is to disrupt the status quo” (p. 17).
Traditionally, discussions of student activism in higher education centered on petitions, marches, protests, strikes, and the occupation of campus buildings (Linder et al, 2019; Morgan & Davis, 2019; Rhoads, 2016). Critical scholars, however, recognize that identity-based student activism, that is, “the ways that minoritized students engage in activism as a result of hostile campus climates” (Linder et al, 2019, p. 528), must also be included. Inclusion of identity-based student activism broadens our understanding of who and what gets labeled as activist/activism.
Based on the emerging critical definitions of student activism, this study aims to explore how federal courts constrain, or promote, student activism. Using WestLaw and search terms focused on campus speech, 66 federal court cases between 1968--2020 were located that involve student activism. The cases analyzed include ‘traditional’ student activism case law (protests, occupation of buildings, etc.) as well as identity-based student activism. For example, cases related to recognition of student organizations were coded as identity-based student activism. These cases highlight the collective development and exercise of power (Cabrera et al, 2017) through access to university resources and the myriad ways that identity-based student activism attempts to disrupt the status quo. Implications for research, policy and practice will be explored, including the potential to support the learning and development of students involved in identity-based activism.

Author

• Karen L. Miksch, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities