The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression rated Franklin & Marshall College with an F, which should spark some concern amongst students. FIRE’s ratings are meant to reflect how well colleges protect free expression. Receiving the lowest possible grade signals a deeper structural issue, rather than isolated incidents. There are various reasons that the campus received this rating, but two stand out: an “ambiguous policy on the books that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application” and general self-censorship/administrative support.
Ambiguous policies are especially dangerous in academic environments because they create uncertainty about what is actually allowed. When rules are unclear, enforcement can become inconsistent, leaving students unsure of when or how they might face consequences for speaking out. This uncertainty alone can discourage participation in discussions, protests or even casual conversations about controversial topics. Over time, that hesitation turns into self-censorship, where students begin to silence themselves before authority even steps in. In that sense, the real issue is about the environment that ambiguity creates.
To better understand how the college is responding, I reached out to F&M’s new president, Andrew Rich. While he was not present during the events that contributed to the rating, his perspective is still important in shaping what happens next. Rich reassured me that he was caught up on the FIRE rating and that administration is working with the Constructive Dialogue Institute. CDI’s mission statement appears to align with F&M’s priority of promoting discussion amongst disagreeing parties rather than censoring one, which will lead to a more apt application of our Freedom of Speech statement.
However, this partnership has been in place since 2024, and many students have yet to see tangible changes in how policies are written or enforced. While initiatives like CDI may provide useful frameworks for discussion, they do not automatically resolve the underlying issue of vague or inconsistently applied rules. Without visible updates to policy language or clear communication about students’ rights, these efforts risk feeling more symbolic than substantive, which Rich aims to avoid.
Andrew Rich also noted a newer initiative: a collaboration with the Institute for Citizens & Scholars through its Campuswide Immersion program, introduced on February 6th of this year. This suggests that the administration is actively seeking multiple avenues for improvement, which is promising. Still, the effectiveness of these programs will ultimately depend on how deeply they are integrated into campus life and whether they lead to concrete policy revisions.
That leaves an important question unanswered: How thorough is the college’s commitment to “reviewing our policies and practices to ensure they are clear, applied consistently, and aligned with our commitment to free inquiry and expression”? As a first-year student, I have already noticed the kind of vague, overly broad language that FIRE criticizes. These policies should not be abstract; they shape everyday student experiences, from organizing events to expressing opinions in public spaces.
I’ve previously written on this subject, especially pertaining to the drafted Protest Tree guidelines, highlighting just how central these policies are to daily campus life. When the rules governing expression are unclear, they not only regulate protest but influence how comfortable students feel speaking at all. If Franklin & Marshall wants to move beyond an F rating, the focus cannot remain solely on dialogue initiatives. It must also include a serious, transparent effort to clarify policies, ensure consistent enforcement, and rebuild student trust in the institution’s commitment to free speech.
Freshman Ramona Banos is the Photography Editor. Her Email is vbanos@fandm.edu.