Davidson College Republican and Davidson College Libertarian Presidents: We stand for free speech at Davidson


By Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ’27 and Stephen Walker ’26

The Davidsonian

March 19, 2025


Davidson’s public commitment to free expression is admirable, but recent anti-speech actions by the College contradict its guarantees to students and set dangerous pro-censorship precedents. This paradox threatens to stifle the open discourse we as a community all grow and benefit from.


For context, a 2021 press release announcing Davidson’s commitment to freedom of expression states the College intends “to build a culture where everyone can participate and be heard” and acknowledges that “freedom of expression can’t exist when some people are barred from the conversation” solely on account of allegations that their speech is seen as wrong or offensive. Davidson’s pledge in the free expression statement itself commits the College to upholding protections of student expression for all because “Dissenting voices cannot and should not be censored.” Recent actions against the College Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter and its president, Cynthia Huang ‘25, threaten to undo these efforts in ways harmful to each and every one of us. 


In a letter published by YAF’s Davidson chapter, the College accused Huang of “Harassment” for publishing political content online and distributing pamphlets that “allegedly includes misinformation” promoting “Islamophobia” and “Transphobia” that made students report feeling “threatened and unsafe on campus.” Davidson offered to “resolve” the matter by forcing Huang to either admit responsibility for the alleged violation and agree to an “Accountability Plan” demanding action to avoid further sanction or a “Code of Responsibility Council Hearing,” which is reserved for actions constituting “serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct,” according to Davidson’s student handbook. 


The content that triggered this response was political material responding to ideas and policies the YAF chapter disagreed with. It is wrong to classify disagreement as harassment simply because the disagreement “offended” students. The content in question was meant to spark discourse surrounding certain political policies and ideologies. According to Davidson’s own standards, this content should be protected speech. 


The content that Huang faces potential sanctions for did not explicitly or implicitly promote any action against specific people or groups on account of their identities. For example, the pamphlet from YAF notes the link between Islamic fundamentalist theology and Hamas. However, this is not “Islamophobic” but a historical and scholarly argument about justifications of violence that rely upon religious interpretations. In fact, Hamas is an acronym that stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” and the group uses Islamic theology to justify their actions. Discussing the impact of religion on violence, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is protected speech and not bigotry. The club did not in any way target students and the material was freely available for anyone to engage with or ignore. Serious political disagreement on issues always has and will continue to offend individuals who dislike competing opinions. However, a small group of students being “offended” never justifies institutional backlash against political speech. 


We are not the only individuals or groups concerned about this restriction on speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan national organization dedicated to protecting free speech for all Americans, recently sent a letter to President Doug Hicks ‘90. FIRE urged Davidson to drop the charges against the YAF chapter and change its policies to align with the Chicago Principles of free speech, commonly known as the Chicago Statement which Davidson has allegedly committed to upholding. 


Adjudicative bodies should not base their decisions purely on perceptions motivated by personal feelings and biases. These actions by the college against YAF risk violating Davidson’s commitment to ensuring free speech and robust debate among students. No threats or harassment against students were included in YAF’s content, and anybody who does not like what they have to say is not being forced to engage with their content in any way. The only discernible motivation for going forward with sanctions is that YAF is a political minority that has questioned political orthodoxies in a way that is upsetting to others. The College’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression was made to protect this type of conduct. The Commitment directly states, “Davidson College’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate, discussion, and deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members of the college community to be offensive or unwise.” Sanctioning YAF for political arguments violates our rights as students and has dangerous implications. 


The aforementioned press release announcing Davidson’s commitment identifies “self-censorship” as a problem for Davidson and a motivator for its creation of the Commitment to Freedom of Expression statement. When students see that the only person who has spoken out against the majority in a political debate is facing sanctions because others did not like the content that student shared, said administrative action sends a message that dissent is unacceptable. This potentially triggers more self-censorship among all those who may disagree with this and countless other political ideas.


As the presidents of the Davidson College Republicans and the Davidson College Libertarians, we stand for the free speech rights of all Davidson students. As a leading liberal arts school receiving taxpayer dollars, Davidson has publicly committed itself to upholding free speech rights for students and faculty. We  call on the College to uphold its proclaimed principles and reject punishing students and political clubs for speech that some might disagree with or find offensive. We call on the College administration to change the Code of Responsibility to align with the Chicago Statement, as FIRE argued is crucial for Davidson in its letter to President Hicks.


Finally, we firmly reject the anti-intellectual, adolescent mindset that has motivated the support for YAF’s censorship. Unwillingness to coexist with peers you may disagree with is unbecoming of students at such a prestigious institution like Davidson. You can’t take away your peers’ rights just because people’s feelings are hurt. 


Gabriel Russ-Nachamie ‘27 is an economics and mathematics double major from Lincolnton, NC and can be reached for comment at garussnachamie@davidson.edu.


Stephen Walker ‘26 is a political science and English double major from Philadelphia, PA and can be reached for comment at stwalker@davidson.edu.


https://thedavidsonian.news/1063/perspectives/davidson-college-republican-and-davidson-college-libertarian-presidents-we-stand-for-free-speech-at-davidson/



October 8, 2025
Cornell and George Mason have allegedly violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
October 7, 2025
The Daily Signal By Hannah Fay October 07, 2025 "On Sept. 5, we filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Education and the Department of Justice against our alma mater, Davidson College. We did not make this decision out of anger towards Davidson but from our hope that Davidson can become an institution of free expression that encourages students to pursue truth. We had chosen Davidson as student athletes and recall being high school seniors, eager to attend a college where we could simultaneously pursue a high level of athletics and academics and be challenged to become better competitors, students and, most importantly, people. We believed that Davidson would be the perfect place for our personal growth, where we would be encouraged to encounter new ideas while contributing our own. Little did we know that Davidson does not welcome students with our convictions . During our senior year, we decided to restart the Davidson chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a national conservative student organization, which had been disbanded. With this decision, we knew that we would receive backlash from peers. Before the school semester even started, we received hateful online comments such as “Who let y’all out of the basement?” We saw how other universities treated conservatives and had even experienced hostility firsthand at Davidson, being called “homophobic” or “uninclusive” for our involvement in Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose statement of faith declares that marriage is between a man and a woman. We realized that, although we were friends with progressive individuals for the past few years, fully aware and accepting of their political beliefs, they would likely distance themselves from us once they learned of ours. While we were prepared for this reaction from our peers, we did not expect to receive such opposition from Davidson administrators. We naively believed that despite the college’s leftist indoctrination efforts (requiring cultural diversity courses, mandating student athletics to watch a documentary arguing that all white people were inherently racist, having a DEI office, designating secluded spaces for LGBTQ+ students, etc.), they would still surely encourage free speech. After all, a liberal arts institution should cultivate a space where students can freely inquire, peacefully debate, and form decisions for themselves. Before the semester even began, we faced resistance from the administration as we could not get approval to restart the club from the Director of Student Activities Emily Eisenstadt for three weeks after a follow-up email and a faculty advisor request. Other conservative organizations also faced irresponsiveness from the Director of Student Activities. However, when leftist groups wanted to bring Gavin Newsom to campus, they had no problem getting a swift response. Despite continued administrative opposition, we hosted speakers, including pro-life activist Abby Johnson and President Ronald Reagan’s economic advisor Arthur Laffer; organized events such as the 9/11 “Never Forget”; and attempted to engage in civil conversations about abortion. Our efforts even led to us being awarded “Chapter Rookie of the Year” by Young America’s Foundation. Our most notable event, and the reason for our complaint, was our “Stand with Israel” project, in which we placed 1,195 Israeli flags into the ground to memorialize the innocent victims of the Oct. 7 Massacre by Hamas. We also laid out pamphlets on tables in the library and student union titled, “The Five Myths About Israel Perpetrated by the Pro-Hamas Left,” provided to us by Young America’s Foundation. This event led to two significant outcomes. First, our flags were stolen overnight. When we brought this to the attention of Davidson administrators and the Honor Council, they dismissed the case and chose not to investigate, despite their so-called commitment to the Honor Code. Second, on Feb. 26, 2025, over four months after the event, we received an email from Director of Rights and Responsibilities Mak Thompkins informing us that we faced charges of “violating” the Code of Responsibility. We had allegedly made students feel “threatened and unsafe” due to our distribution of pamphlets that allegedly promoted “Islamophobia.” This was ironic to us, given that we did not even know who our accusers were, let alone not ever having interacted with them. What’s more, we knew of Jewish students who genuinely felt targeted because of the rampant antisemitism on our campus. For example, a massive Palestine flag was hung across our main academic building the day after President Donald Trump won the election, and the student group ‘Cats Against Imperialism’—Davidson’s college moniker is “Wildcats”—distributed pamphlets promoting their aggressive pro-Palestinian agenda. Yet, unlike us, they faced no consequences. Davidson’s biased treatment towards pro-Israel students led to our filing a civil rights complaint with the DOJ and Department of Education. Davidson College must be held accountable for its blatant discrimination and violation of Title VI and Title IX ; it should not receive any federal funding until it complies with the federal law. In light of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, it is now more important than ever that higher education promotes free expression. Colleges and universities are predominantly controlled by leftists who demonize conservatives and the values we stand for. If Davidson cannot commit to shaping students who understand the equal dignity of every person made in the image of God, regardless of religion, it risks corrupting individuals and prompting them to support, or even commit, acts of political violence. We hope that Davidson will become a community that values all perspectives and treats all students with dignity and respect, including the Jewish population. Though we are not of Jewish descent, we strongly support Israel and the Jewish people and faced discrimination based on the content of our support. If we had, as our counterparts did, expressed antisemitism, Davidson officials would have treated us differently. Hannah Fay is a communications fellow for media and public relations at The Heritage Foundation.
September 21, 2025
Evidence Backs Trump on Higher Ed’s Bias
Show More