Editor’s note: This story has been updated at the request of a source who wishes to remain anonymous due to current visa and safety concerns facing international students.

SMU’s Student Senate debated new policies regarding freedom of expression on campus on Tuesday, Oct.7. This past week, the 112th Student Senate passed a resolution affirming protections for free speech at SMU, as well as a bill establishing the Free Speech Fund.

Both the resolution and bill were inspired and written in honor of Charlie Kirk following his recent assassination on Utah Valley University’s campus.

The resolution calls for a summary statement outlining actions taken to protect the freedom of expression ensured by Section 9.4 of the University Policy Manual.

Cox Senator Owen Bartosh was a co-author of the resolution and Free Speech Fund, and was open about the influence Kirk’s death had on the proposals.

“I have been very open about my beliefs in the chamber, but we had support from people on both sides of the aisle,” Cox Senator Owen Bartosh said of the resolution and bill. “I do believe it can be a unifying thing…Nobody wants to feel unsafe participating in a free speech event.”

The joint statement will be released by the civic engagement director for Student Senate and the SMU Police Department.

The Free Speech Fund expands on the resolution, setting aside $10,000 from the Senate’s Weekly Fund for student-led events promoting open debate and freedom of expression.

The resolution and bill faced pushback within the Senate over its explicit referencing of Kirk, a prominent right-wing activist, as some said that it could potentially exclude some groups on campus or suggest a political bias within the chamber.

“No one celebrated his death…but it is important to highlight that his discourse attacked many groups that make up SMU’s student body,” International Senator L. P. L. said. “So yes, extensively mentioning him and using words that express condolences may be detrimental to the ‘non-partisan’ aspect of Senate’s actions.”

The resolution was proposed by Bartosh and Meadows Senator Mila Oliva, and was originally written as a proclamation earlier in the year. The proclamation was not initially passed by the Senate, but was brought back as a resolution for voting during their Sept. 30 Senate meeting.

Resolutions require a majority vote in the Senate rather than unanimous agreement in order to pass. This led some senators to oppose the resolution, based on the precedent that it could set for future proclamations returning to the Senate without any major changes being made.

“In my opinion, it does not set that precedent…I don’t see a future where proclamations are ‘converted’ into resolutions,” Bartosh said. “I think in this case it appeared that way because the inciting incident was the same and the context was the same, but the goal was substantially different.”

The International Senator had spoken with one of the original proclamation’s authors about changing the language to be more neutral, but none of these suggestions were adopted into the new resolution.

They had also proposed an amendment to substitute some of the language in the Free Speech Fund bill, but the Senate rejected it.

“It is hard to find compromise and middle ground when your efforts are dismissed,” they said.

Compared to previous years, there have been fewer funding requests for specific free speech organizations and events on campus. However, supporters of the Free Speech Fund said that part of the goal is to increase access and desire to hold free speech events.

If there is money not spent from the fund after five years, the money will be swept back into the Senate’s general fund.

Proponents felt that the language of the resolutions was important in highlighting the context of the Senate’s decision-making.

“I have been very open about my beliefs in the chamber, but we had support from people on both sides of the aisle,” Bartosh argued. “I do believe it can be a unifying thing…Nobody wants to feel unsafe participating in a free speech event.”

Opponents of the resolution and bill felt that the issue was more nuanced, and the language written into the proposals did not reflect this.

“I think it is important that the student body know that no one [in] that room was ever against condemning political violence…The concern was if we were doing it in the right way,” the International Senator said. “The words being proclaimed did not reflect the beliefs of a big part of the student body. All we wanted was to ensure no one felt pressured to hide their beliefs because the Student Senate was supporting a view that it is not shared by all.”

The Oct. 7 meeting became heated as the chamber debated the resolution and the free speech fund, revealing high political tensions.

“Unlike other chambers in the past, I think unfortunately the 112th has been marked by a lot of political divide,” Bartosh said. “There were some personal attacks across the debate…but I think people walked away feeling more comfortable.”

The bill and resolution’s passing comes just after the failure of the proposed Mustang Public Affairs Committee (Mustang PAC). The proposed organization sought to create an SMU chapter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but ultimately did not receive a base charter after a secret ballot was conducted during the September 30 meeting.

“The composition of this chamber seems to maybe have more students that lean in a certain political way, but the goal of Senate and the goal of each representative should be to carry out the will of their constituents,” Bartosh said. “I believe that in introducing these resolutions, these bills, and in my voting record, I’ve been representing those constituents and that’s the only obligation I have.”

SMU Student Senate is moving on to less political topics and is now tackling parking issues on campus. Senator Bartosh is hopeful that the Student Senate will have a more open environment going forward and that senators will be more transparent in their views.

“We have to be held accountable for our votes. If Senate is gaining a reputation as being political or leaning one side, and if the people don’t like that, they should be able to know which of their senators is voting which way,” Bartosh said. “It’s really concerning to me to see people shying away from voting publicly, from speaking out, from being accountable.”