Gettysburg College landed in hot water after reports that the campus chaplain allegedly pressured and physically contacted a student who helped host an anti-DEI speaker, raising sharp questions about intimidation, free speech, and how college officials handle complaints. The episode centers on an event where Vince Everett Ellison challenged prevailing campus narratives on race and was interrupted by the chaplain, who then reportedly touched a student organizer while telling him to “find something else to do.” The school’s response has been framed as confidential, frustrating students who want accountability. This article lays out what happened, how the college reacted, and why the handling matters for campus speech and student safety.
The incident unfolded when a Young Americans for Freedom chapter brought Vince Everett Ellison to speak. Accounts say the chaplain confronted the crowd multiple times, heckling the event and later confronting a student organizer in a way that crossed a line. Students describe the chaplain as intent on disrupting the event rather than engaging in civil debate, which left organizers shaken and concerned about future campus activism.
According to emails sent to college administrators, the chaplain allegedly “made unwanted physical contact” with one of the students who helped to organize the event. Gettysburg’s human resources director told the student in writing, “I want to assure you that we take your concerns seriously and are addressing this matter appropriately,” but refused to disclose specific actions because of employee privacy rules. That kind of standard response leaves students to wonder whether transparency and safety are being sacrificed in the name of confidentiality.
The reported contact was more than a casual brush; emails claim the chaplain placed his hand on the student’s shoulder “three times while instructing [the student] to ‘find something else to do.’” For many conservatives on campus, that reads as intimidation, a clear attempt to chill dissent rather than to participate in open debate. When an employee with institutional authority steps into a student-run event and resorts to physicality, it is reasonable to demand an explanation and a meaningful response from the college.
Students who tried to follow up say they received no meaningful update after the review. That lack of clarity has fueled anger and distrust toward the administration, which appears to be protecting staff at the expense of student concerns. When colleges hide behind confidentiality without offering any assurance that the investigation was thorough or impartial, they undermine trust and signal that administrators or favored staff may be above scrutiny.
Campus activists who opposed Ellison went further, attempting to silence the event by tearing down fliers and leaving messages saying the speaker was not welcome. Those efforts illustrate a campus climate where disagreement too often turns into censorship and harassment from multiple sides. But messy campus politics do not excuse alleged physical contact or intimidation by a college official, which should be investigated openly and fairly.
Gettysburg’s religious life office frames itself as promoting radical hospitality and tolerance, yet students report the chaplain’s actions were the opposite of hospitable. The chaplain’s own rhetoric and past roles tied to DEI work only heighten suspicions among conservatives that ideological enforcement can substitute for pastoral care. When a campus office claims to welcome dialogue but acts to suppress opposing viewpoints, the contradiction is stark and damaging.
Young Americans for Freedom has pushed back, filing complaints and demanding transparency about the outcome of any investigation. Their stance is straightforward: students deserve to know that complaints about intimidation and unwanted contact by staff are taken seriously and resolved with clear consequences when warranted. Colleges must protect free expression while also ensuring that no one on campus uses position or power to silence others.
At its core, this episode is about authority and accountability. When a college employee allegedly crosses a line, the institution must respond in a way that protects students and preserves trust. If confidentiality prevents basic transparency, colleges should explain what that process looks like and offer victims real remedies so students do not feel second-class on their own campus.
Students and alumni are watching closely, and their outrage reflects a broader demand for clarity and consistency on campus. Transparency is not a political favor; it is essential to maintaining an environment where debate is allowed and where officials are not permitted to intimidate those with different views. Until schools demonstrate they will hold employees to account, conservative students will reasonably worry that speaking up comes with a cost.
View this post on Instagram
