The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is reconsidering door-to-door political campaigning policies within residence halls for the first time since 1988. While a policy change has been delayed, the decision is ever-important with a presidential election approaching and concerns over campus safety growing. Should UW consider a ban on door-to-door campaigning?
Point: Door-to-door canvassing is crucial to the democratic process — residence halls are not exempt
As political divides grow wider than ever, the public discussion of political issues is becoming more and more taboo. While social media continues to swim with personal attacks and polarized propaganda, it is now widely considered unacceptable to talk about politics even at the dinner table.
If we continue to shove respectful discussions on important issues under the table in fear of confrontation or judgment, how can we expect the next generation to develop thoughtful stances on social issues?
Door-to-door campaigning serves to solve this problem by providing a playground for individuals to wrestle with complex political issues. Citizens need opportunities to ask questions and reflect on the consequences of their votes rather than blindly consuming the political ideologies they are fed by two-party politics. By providing a space for healthy discussion, canvassing allows constituents to reclaim the power of their votes.
A study conducted in the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election surveyed 1,311 undergraduate students from each region of the country, and found that most students felt their college campuses did not provide a climate that encouraged open conversation on controversial political issues. Specifically, the Heterodox Academy found that 60% of surveyed students reported feeling reluctant to converse with their peers about the impending presidential election.
Door-to-door canvassing opens up space for free discourse on campus. For instance, District Alder MGR Govindarajan tells the Cap Times that his experience with campaigning in residence halls was the most effective method of communicating with his voter base.
While campus safety must be a priority, it does not have to come at the cost of a democratic process. For instance, UW is considering a requirement for candidates to be accompanied by a UW student when campaigning in residence halls. This requirement would ensure safe probing of political issues right at students’ doorsteps. If young adults can get comfortable discussing controversial issues, we are likely to see a future where radical politics lose their influence and divisive propaganda is less influential.
Additionally, UW’s proposal to require campaigning be restricted to certain hours and receive approval from university housing should relieve concerns regarding safety. Until these policies are passed, there is nothing stopping students from simply placing a sign on their doors to prevent campaigners from knocking.
While rallies are important avenues for voter education, they cannot replace door-to-door campaigning, a historical tool that provides accessible voter education. For instance, political rallies might require attendees to take a day off work or miss classes. Rallies are off-campus, raising transportation costs and accessibility issues.
Moreover, local elections do not always offer rallies, leading to a heavy reliance on canvassing. Fortunately, on-campus speaker events might be more accessible than rallies, but they must be supplemented with canvassing efforts that meet students right where they are.
As young adults, we are not absolved from our responsibility to roll up our sleeves and get uncomfortable. Canvassing forces students to take a step beyond hitting the like button on a political meme on TikTok before scrolling away.
Aanika Parikh ([email protected]) is a junior studying molecular and cell biology and health policy.
Counterpoint: Campaigning in residence halls is a violation of student’s safety and privacy
In its proposal, UW would remove limits surrounding campaign materials being placed in common areas and would also certify that candidates must be accompanied by a student or student organization for door-to-door campaigning. While it is important to educate and inform young voters, this proposal could end up doing far more harm than good.
There are concerns surrounding free speech and safety and how they apply specifically to a residence hall. Likewise, there is considerable ambiguity in classifying a residence hall as a public space. Trying to define what exactly is private or public can prove difficult. For instance, is a hallway just as public as a common area lounge? Do the same rights afforded to residents of privately owned property apply to those in a university-owned building?
When it comes to political campaigning, students need to know what to expect and when to expect it. If students do not know whether they will be bombarded on their way to the bathroom or not, their home environment — which they have a right to — will not feel safe. Moreover, many roommates share different political beliefs and values, so if political content reaches their doorstep, it may create immense strife within relationships.
Additionally, not every student at UW is even eligible to vote. International students who live in dorms cannot vote in a U.S. election. If individuals are campaigning for these students to vote for a certain candidate it is not only a waste of the student’s time, but also the campaigner’s. Campaigning in residence halls can also alienate international students, as it may force them to explain to strangers that the U.S. is not their home, creating an emotional burden for those who are not eligible to vote.
It is critical for universities to promote and maintain a safe environment for students of all backgrounds and beliefs and having politics overwhelm a person’s home, goes against those values. American society is highly polarized right now and individuals maintain the right to be as involved in politics as they please. If students must worry their room will not be free of political conversations, campaigning veers into an issue of safety, not just free speech.
Political content in designated common areas is commonplace, but door-to-door campaigns infringe on the safety and rights of students. The university needs to take significant time — post-election — to evaluate the effects bringing politics into residence halls would have on the student body.
Rallies, speakers, posters and media announcements are just some of the sufficient ways for candidates to reach the student body. Finally, getting mail in a mailbox explaining a candidate and their values accomplishes the same goal that showing up at a door would without infringing on safety. Mail campaigning protects the privacy of students while simultaneously advocating for younger people to vote. A younger audience is critical to the election, but youth voters need to have a safe space free of political conversations. That place should be their residence hall.
Sammie Garrity ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science.
