In April 2026, The News-Letter reached out to members of the Student Government Association’s (SGA) Executive Board to encourage SGA members to write about their progress regarding recent initiatives, the reason behind pursuing them and potential concerns about SGA’s trajectory. Our reason for this was simple: We wish to expand our coverage to all aspects of student life, which SGA plays a large role in. Although The News-Letter covers the weekly SGA general body meetings (GBM), these are brief 400–500 word articles that lack insight that SGA representatives could provide if they wrote their own articles. In addition, while SGA collectively posts updates on Instagram, the information shared is restricted by the social media format. We believed that The News-Letter would serve as a platform for SGA to archive their legislative progress and increase their transparency for the student body, a goal SGA has been making headway on in recent years.
SGA invited The News-Letter to call for SGA columnists at their first public GBM on Sept. 1, 2026. During the meeting, The News-Letter emphasized that all articles written by SGA members would feature a disclaimer stating that the opinion expressed solely belongs to the writer, not the entirety of SGA. Following The News-Letter’s departure, an SGA staff advisor urged members to consult the Executive Board and an SGA advisor prior to writing for The News-Letter. Multiple SGA members alerted The News-Letter regarding this announcement, citing how the advisor cautioned them about criticizing SGA and University administration.
This alarmed us. The News-Letter is founded upon a commitment to student’s free speech, and the possibility for conflicting dialogue to be filtered may prevent the dialogue from occurring altogether. Is the role of administration in SGA to advise the personal expression of every student who also serves as an SGA representative?
On Sept. 10, an SGA member emailed Vice Provost for Student Affairs Rachelle Hernandez, asking for clarification on the administration’s stance on SGA expression, especially for public criticism. The next day, The News-Letter requested a formal directive from the SGA Executive Board, which would explicate its policy regarding SGA members’ participation with The News-Letter. We did not suggest anything specific to be included in that directive — we simply asked for it to be delivered.
Shortly after these requests, the advisor’s initial statement was later redacted by another SGA advisor at the Sept. 15 GBM. The advisor stated that SGA members do not require approval from administration to write for The News-Letter. We noted that “consultation,” as stated by the other SGA advisor, and approval are not synonymous. The advisor also encouraged SGA to construct their own policies regarding contributing. We worried how the two contradictory announcements would affect SGA member enthusiasm for contributing to The News-Letter.
On Sept. 29, SGA passed the “JHU SGA Freedom Of Expression Directive,” which reiterates and defends the public speech of SGA members. Notable sections regarding administrative input include establishing the lack of a mandatory review by administrative members, encouraging “agreement, disagreement, critique, and commentary on SGA actions, administrative actions, and campus issues.” The Directive also offers SGA members the choice of optional feedback from administration.
After the first GBM and prior to the passing of the Directive, we examined SGA’s guiding documents, such as the Constitution and Bylaws of the Senate, to analyze the authority and responsibilities SGA advisors and administration hold. On the one hand, the Constitution does not mention the scope of the SGA advisor. On the other hand, the Bylaws of the Senate defined the advisors as “resources when called upon by the SGA.” Scattered responsibilities included meeting with SGA members to “develop a strategy for increasing student interest and engagement,” dealing with accommodation requests for SGA events and other tasks. There was no mention of overseeing SGA member speech.
While reflecting on the role of the University administration in monitoring student organizations, we realized that the reverse also merited contemplation. To borrow the syntax shared by the University President Ronald J. Daniels in the title of his co-authored book What Universities Owe Democracy, what do student organizations, particularly ones central to student expression such as SGA, owe to the University administration?
In the first pages of his book, Daniels affirms all institutions’ aversion to change, especially in moments of uncertainty. “This is especially the case for colleges and universities,” Daniels writes. However, Daniels also notes that “within such institutions, meaningful transformation becomes truly possible only during periods of change and profound uncertainty. Economists call these ‘critical junctures.’”
It seems the University itself would appear to be at such a “critical juncture.” We recognize that higher education is currently facing scrutiny from the federal government, particularly in securing federal funding and navigating new higher education frameworks. Regarding the mention of “meaningful transformation,” we believe that student organizations, especially SGA, have the potential to advocate for institutional changes to administration.
We are strongly aware of SGA’s importance on campus; they are the only organization that can directly connect University administration with student concerns, compromise on fair, lasting changes through legislation and establish the groundwork for administration’s external oversight. This is precisely what SGA owes to University administration. For SGA to continue bridging students to administration, it must still listen and communicate to students on its own accord, uninfluenced by any administrative pressure in the process. Moreover, if student representatives or entire organizations themselves become prone to routine self-censorship, who’s to say that this habit, rooted in fear, will not spread to the greater student body and become engrained in student culture?
We support SGA’s commitment to maintaining free speech internally, but we are aware that, even in this newly passed Directive, the role of administration in SGA expression is solely defined by what they cannot do, rather than what they can. The role of Hopkins administration in SGA should be clearly defined in its guiding documents and be adhered to so that student leaders, and the student body as a whole, can distinguish between fair administrative guidance and restriction on student voices.
Now, SGA must continue meticulously outlining and protecting their free expression, and University administration should uphold its expressed commitment to let SGA internally decide how to manage its oversight for external publication. To SGA members: The News-Letter will continue to report on and preserve your progress. Now, we hope you feel welcome to do the same.
The Editorial Board consists of the Editors-in-Chief, the Managing Editors, the Opinions Editor, and one Editor-at-Large from any section other than News & Features. The Editorial Board operates independently from the reporting conducted by the News & Features section.
