Venue Shopping in Multiple Streams: Campus Free Speech Policy Adoption in Wisconsin

• Published date: 01 May 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231157743
• Author: Brian Stelbotsky,Luke Fowler
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231157743

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(5) 779 –801

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231157743

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Venue Shopping in

Multiple Streams:

Campus Free Speech

Policy Adoption in

Wisconsin

Brian Stelbotsky1 and Luke Fowler1

Abstract

Wisconsin’s Campus Free Speech Act provides a distinctive case study

to examine the intersection of venue shopping and the multiple streams

framework. After some initial traction, entrepreneur ran into roadblocks

in the state legislature; then, shifted their attention to the University of

Wisconsin Board of Regents, where they were able to take advantage of

an open policy window. When these events are considered holistically,

they illustrate how manipulating institutional structures and fragmented

authorities can help entrepreneurs achieve their goals.

Keywords

venue shopping, multiple streams framework, campus free speech

Fragmentation of authority in the U.S., as well as other decentralized gov-

ernmental systems, makes venue shopping particularly pervasive as there

are numerous political and administrative bodies with overlapping author-

ities to choose from. Specifically, venue shopping is a phenomenon where

entrepreneurs seek out policymaking bodies sympathetic to their causes,

or at least susceptible to their manipulation, so that they can increase their

1Boise State University, ID, USA

Corresponding Author:

Luke Fowler, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive – MS 1935, Boise, ID 83725, USA.

Email: lukefowler@boisestate.edu

1157743AAS0010.1177/00953997231157743Administration & SocietyStelbotsky and Fowler

research-article2023

780 Administration & Society 55(5)

chances of success. This is in contrast to a more conventional view of gov-

ernment where centralized legislative bodies or executive authorities enjoy

policy monopolies, making them “the only game in town.” Of course, the

era of networked governance, polycentric institutions, and self-organized

policy systems has increased the possibility that one can find an open pol-

icy window if she only looks hard enough. While the multiple streams

framework (MSF) provides theoretical tools to understand why decisions

occur as they do within specific venues (i.e., stream coupling), it does not

yet explain how actors choose which venue to pursue their goals or what

happens when actors are operating across distinct venues in pursuit of the

same policy goals.

Wisconsin’s Campus Free Speech Act provides a unique case study to

examine these issues. Conflicts over freedom of expression and protest on

university campuses have proliferated in recent years, moving from concerns

within particular higher education institutions or systems onto the legislative

agenda at the state and federal levels (see, e.g., Federal Register, 2020; Shaw

v. Burke, 2019). While legislation concerning free speech issues on university

campuses has been considered in some 40 states (AAUP, 2018; NCSL, 2021),

Wisconsin stands out. Between 2017 and 2019, the Wisconsin State Assembly

twice introduced and successfully passed the Campus Free Speech Act, but

twice it failed to make it through the State Senate (NCSL, 2021). Subsequent

to the passage of the legislation in 2017, a policy nearly identical to the leg-

islation passed by the State Assembly reached the agenda of the University of

Wisconsin (UW) Board of Regents, the governing body for the UW System

(Board of Regents, 2021). After brief consideration, The UW Board of

Regents adopted the policy as Resolution 10952 in October of 2017 (Board

of Regents, 2017b), effectively implementing the Campus Free Speech Act

without legislative action, a situation distinctive among states that have con-

sidered such measures (AAUP, 2018).

This presents a rather novel case study that illustrates an argument await-

ing systematic empirical examination in as far as it is a clear example of a

policy moving from a legislative body to an administrative one after hitting a

roadblock. Of course, that systematic empirical examination is difficult when

few explicit examples of this type of venue shopping occur. While similar

policies have advanced through both legislative and administrative bodies in

other states, there are no other specific cases in which the same policy has

shifted from one venue to the other and subsequently been adopted, adding

further intrigue to the circumstances by which policy entrepreneurs pursue

their goals. Considered through the lens of MSF, this certainly leaves one

wondering how a policy window that closed for the State Senate opened for

the Board of Regents. The novelty of this case provides a unique opportunity