The college will soon adopt an External Speakers Policy outlining the proper procedures to follow when members of the Allegheny community invite an individual to campus to speak. The move comes six months after a controversial speaker visited campus to host a discussion about preventing transgender women from participating in women’s sports; however, college officials said the creation of the new policy is unrelated to that event.
The Student Enrichment Committee — which consists of students, faculty and administrators and serves as the basic needs committee for the campus — sought feedback on the draft External Speakers Policy at a meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 29. The draft policy was shared with the Allegheny community as a GatorHub announcement on Tuesday, Oct. 21. The announcement drew one student and four faculty members to voice their thoughts at the committee meeting.
The External Speakers Policy aims to establish a procedure for inviting speakers to campus and gathering relevant information about their visit; ensure clear communication between college offices, students and organizations involved with hosting the speaker; establish a way to assess risk associated with a speaker; and create legal protection for the college in the event that the college does not invite or rescinds an invitation for a speaker.
Dean for the Student Experience Ian Binnington, who co-chairs the Student Enrichment Committee, and Dean for Student Life Trae Yeckley, who attended the meeting, explained that the policy is not meant to control the speech of a speaker. The Statement of Community is the college’s “free speech policy” and establishes guidelines around appropriate speech, according to Yeckley. In contrast, the External Speakers Policy seeks to manage the risk of any actions that speech may provoke.
“Events will not be canceled or denied based on the viewpoint of the speaker; they will only be denied or modified if they pose an imminent threat of significant harm or disruption that cannot be mitigated through reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions,” the policy says.
The phrase “reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions” refers to a legal principle established by the Supreme Court that allows the government or government-funded institutions to restrict certain speech as long as those restrictions are unrelated to the content of the speech and are not overly burdensome.
Binnington said the External Speakers Policy is designed to enhance information sharing and risk management. It is “viewpoint neutral,” he explained, which means the college would only ever not invite a speaker to campus based on potential security concerns posed by their speech, not the content they voice.
“If you don’t allow a speaker that place in the marketplace of ideas, yes, they’re not speaking,” Binnington said. “But they’re not not speaking because of what they are saying. They’re not speaking because of, you know, it’s going to interrupt classes or it’s going to cause a riot or it’s going to lead to a building getting burned down, or whatever the case may be.”
Several times during the hour-long conversation, committee members and attendees referenced a Turning Point USA event in April 2025, when the chapter invited conservative speaker Olivia Krolczyk to campus to speak about preventing transgender women from participating in women’s sports. Binnington said at the meeting that while Krolczyk was a “controversial” speaker, the External Speakers Policy was first conceptualized in February 2025 and is not related to the TPUSA event. Any apparent connection between the two events is a “coincidence,” he said.
Under the new policy, all events involving an external speaker would be classified under three levels of review, with a Level 3 review being the only level where the college could alter or deny an event. Information about an event — such as the topic, number of expected attendees, whether the speaker will bring their own security detail and whether the detail would be armed — will be collected while making the Scheduler request to reserve space on campus and used to determine the necessary level of review. Level 1 review applies to standard events that do not require special logistical considerations. Level 2 review is triggered by the presence of external press or media, invited or otherwise; 100 or more expected attendees; or the presence of alcohol.
A “Level 3 review” means an event may be altered or denied by the college and is triggered by a potential for significant disruption or protest or the heightened need for security or safety considerations. The policy also states that speakers who have previously engaged in “disruptive” speech or activity would be subject to Level 3 review. This includes, for example, inciting violence or promoting hate against individuals based on their legally protected identity, characteristics or membership in a legally protected group; obstructing or disrupting the normal functions of the college; or endangering or imminently threatening to endanger the safety of any member of the college community.
An Event Review would be completed by the Event Review Team, which comprises nine high-ranking members of the college administration, including the provost and dean of the faculty, dean for student and community development, director of public safety and chair of the Faculty Council. The college president or their designee would receive the Event Review Team’s recommendation and make the final decision.
At the meeting, Professor of Chemistry Sean Murphree expressed concern that the External Speaker Policy could be weaponized if those who disagree with a speaker intentionally stage a disruption on campus. Yeckley acknowledged his concerns, but said that such a disruption is prohibited by other college policies, such as the non-disruption clause in the Community Standards guidelines, and would not be permitted.
Repeatedly throughout the meeting, Krolczyk’s visit to campus last year was referenced as an example for how the three levels of review might function. Binnington noted that the institution did not ban Krolczyk, despite requests from over 200 alumni to do so. While Binnington could not say for certain how the college would have handled Krolczyk’s visit under the External Speakers Policy, since it did not exist at the time, he “suspected” her visit may have reached Level 3 review. Yeckley added that because students were targeted online and “threatened” by Krolczyk, her visit likely would have triggered Level 3 review.
“As an institution, we have a responsibility to protect our students,” Yeckley said. “So when our students get drawn into being…threatened, that’s, I think, when we have the right to step in and say we are not going to allow that on campus.”
Binnington added that there is “clear language” in the policy about viewpoint neutrality.
Murphree responded to Binnington’s and Yeckley’s explanations.
“I appreciate that,” Murphree said, “and I would be also encouraged if, indeed, the language about hate speech were removed, too, because that can be used as a pretty fuzzy bludgeon.”
The policy does not contain the term “hate speech.” The sole instance of the word “hate” in the policy is in a list of activities that qualify a speaker as “disruptive” and thus subject to Level 3 review. The list states that Level 3 review is triggered if a speaker “incites violence or promotes hate against individuals based on their legally protected identity, characteristics, or membership in a legally protected group.”
“I realize we’re a private institution and we’re not bound by the absolute principles of free speech, that we have latitude,” Murphree said. “At the same time, if we claim to prepare our students to be productive citizens, presumably American citizens, then I think it’s also incumbent upon us to defend those principles that they will be engaging in when they leave these four walls.”
Associate Professor of Environmental Science & Sustainability Adrienne Krone pointed out that “hate speech” is a legally definable term. Binnington added that all the criteria on the list used to qualify a speaker as “disruptive” and therefore subject to Level 3 review are legally definable terms, which will ensure standard application of the qualifications.
Several attendees raised concerns that the Level 3 review of “heightened need for security or safety considerations” for a formal risk assessment could be influenced by personal opinions.
“I feel as if the safety issue could be used asymmetrically, with perhaps hidden bias on our part, to say, well, ‘It’s not worth the risk for this speaker, but we believe so strongly in this principle that, you know, we’ll just heighten security for this event,’” Murphree said.
Binnington said future revisions to the External Speakers Policy will consider strengthening Level 3 review to clarify that the heightened security measures must be “beyond the point at which the campus can guarantee anybody’s safety.”
“Because we shouldn’t be allowed to use that to say, ‘Well, it’s going to be too expensive. We don’t want you to come,’” Binnington continued.
Binnington said that until the External Speakers Policy is implemented, there is no “clear mechanism” for information sharing ahead of speakers’ visits and that the college faces legal liability risks. Because of this, he is hoping to implement the policy by the end of the semester. Though additional groups, such as Faculty Council, will have the opportunity to provide feedback again, none will be allowed to vote on whether to approve the policy. Binnington said this is because, in addition to eliminating the college’s current risk of legal liability, “safety is not up for a vote.”
The policy has been discussed with several groups, including the Faculty Council, faculty from the American Association of University Professors and building coordinators. Binnington encouraged members of the Allegheny community to continue to provide their feedback to him over the coming weeks.
“It is really helpful to get other eyes looking at something from different perspectives and points of view in order to see things that I didn’t see,” Binnington said, “or that the many, many people who’ve read this up to this point didn’t see.”
Anton Hodge contributed to this reporting.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify Professor of Chemistry Sean Murphree’s concerns about the External Speakers Policy. Updated: Feb. 23, 2026, 2:05 p.m.
