Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
University and Free Speech – Hope for the Future?
Lately, I’ve seen a few encouraging stories about a shifting perspective about free speech on university campuses. Some of the shifts are unhelpful, but others suggest that the leadership of universities is finally recognizing the significant role their institutions can play in supporting and perpetuating free speech.
At first glance, some stories are not positive. A few universities are trying to charge a “security fee” to groups who are inviting what the university defines as “controversial speakers.” Needless to say, the administrators are the very ones who decide that a given speaker is controversial, immediately suggesting that trouble will be brewing before and during a presentation. The University of Alabama imposed a fee of $7,000 on the College Republicans chapter that was hosting Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016. Just before the event, the university revoked the fee with the statement, “the University of Alabama supports free speech and welcomes diverse speakers to our campus. As with all speakers, the views of Mr. Yiannopoulos do not necessarily reflect the views of the University.” It was a wise choice since the chapter could not afford the fee and would have had to cancel the event.
Several colleges are backing down from charging fees and permitting speakers whom they deem controversial due to actions of the Foundation for the Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). When UC Berkeley tried to charge a security fee of $3,732.33 in 2009 for the speaker, Elan Journo, who was scheduled to lecture on “America’s Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” FIRE wrote:
By holding student organizations hosting expressive events responsible for whatever disruptive activity results from the controversy of these events, Berkeley grants a ‘heckler’s veto’ to the most disruptive members of the university community. Individuals wishing to silence speech with which they disagree merely have to threaten to protest, and student groups not able to furnish adequate funds for security will be forced to cancel their events. In such a situation, disruptive protests win out over responsible expressive activity. Controversial speech cannot be unduly burdened simply because it is controversial.
UC Berkeley allowed the event.
When Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley last fall, the university tried to charge students for up to $15,738 for “security costs.” Eventually, the university offered a venue and provided security at the cost of $600,000, mostly covered by the university.
On the encouraging side, one federal judge recently ruled that the University of Washington couldn’t charge a college Republican group $17,000 in security fees; they had invited Joey Gibson, head of Patriot Prayer, a conservative group, to speak at a campus rally. It’s worth noting that the rally went on as planned; five Antifa thugs were arrested when they attacked attendees.
Another positive occurrence was a letter sent by the President of the University of Montana, Missoula regarding the planned lecture of Mike Adams, a professor at University of North Carolina—Wilmington, who lately has been the center of much controversy. President Bodnar said, in part:
Allowing someone to speak on our campus is not an endorsement of his or her views, nor do we condone speech that is hateful or targets people based on their identities. What a speaker says may define him or her, but it does not define us. It is possible for us to stand firmly in support of free speech while also standing firm in our values.
It’s worth noting, again, that although there were protestors inside and outside the event, the UM Police Chief said that six or seven attendees were removed from the event but no one was arrested.
I’d like to cite one more situation that took place at the University of Central Oklahoma, where the founder of an organization called Genesis, Ken Ham, planned to speak on Darwinian views and creationism. After inviting Ham, the president of the UCO Student Association, Stockton Duvall, said that “gay rights advocates objected to Ham’s stance against marriage”; for that reason, he decided to rescind the invitation. The University president, Don Betz, made the following statement:
As a public institution whose campus is public property, our doors are open to any who wish to express their ideas so long as student and public safety is preserved. A variety of groups representing a full spectrum of ideas and opinions regularly come to our campus and speak freely, and we have public spaces for them to do so. That includes demonstrators that support a variety of sometimes controversial positions.
Our campus community is composed of many people and organizations that offer various viewpoints on many topics. A diverse group of students posed questions about the decision to invite Mr. Ham to campus. While any reports of bullying will be and are being investigated, it is important to state that reports that the LGBTQ community prevented Mr. Ham from being invited to campus are inaccurate and unfair to members of our campus community.
Mr. Ham was re-invited, and President Belz announced there would be a discussion of the First Amendment on the morning of Mr. Ham’s speech on March 5.
Meantime, there are people of wisdom leading university campuses. In the Wall Street Journal this weekend, an interview with Robert Zimmer, President of the University of Chicago was published. He was asked about a professor inviting Steve Bannon to speak:
‘It’s been quite interesting to watch this because, as you can imagine, there are many people who are opposed to Steve Bannon and wish that he hadn’t been invited,’ Mr. Zimmer says. Nonetheless, ‘the students have been remarkable. The student government had a town hall with the faculty member who invited Bannon.’ The students ran the event, ‘and they were very clear that there was to be no disruption, that they wanted to have a conversation.’
Mr. Zimmer also feels strongly that education about free speech needs to begin earlier, at the high school level, so that universities won’t need to begin this conversation “from scratch.”
I think we can see a small light showing on college campuses regarding free speech, and I think there might be a potential for a shift in attitude:
- When a university rescinds (or doesn’t even charge) a security fee, there has been minimal disruption;
- When a university president speaks out in support of free speech in the face of potentially controversial speeches, demonstrations are peaceful;
- When law enforcement is an active presence at these presentations, protests are minimal and non-violent.
There are probably other actions that can be initiated. Obviously, there are campuses where security costs may be high, in which case the university and law enforcement, without prejudice against a speaker, must decide on a reasonable cost and what the university can afford. There have also been suggestions for creative ways to deal with costs.
But decisions should not be made at the price of preventing free speech.
Published in Education
Why not do it the old-fashioned way? No security for speakers, so no exorbitant security fees. But police are called if troublemakers get out of hand, so the thugs go to prison and are not just escorted out of the building.
Works for me, Aaron. I think that would be the most valuable message–especially the arrests!
Students who participate in violent protests should be expelled. Non-students who come on to campus to participate in violent protests should be arrested and prosecuted. As Greg Gutfeld says, “Period!”
I offer these suggests:
It might work, it might not. If there’s any intolerance, it should be by those denied the freedom to hear the speaker without hassle.
The picture accompanying this post is really all you need to see.
Susan,
Here are a couple examples that are both hopeful and extremely challenging/dangerous.
UPenn Law Professor Told to Take ‘Leave of Absence’ for Politically Incorrect Views
Brains for Brexit: UK Intellectuals Break Ranks with Pro-EU Academic Establishment
Regards,
Jim
The biggest lie out there is that “hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” That is the lie behind the attack on free speech in the academy. I was speaking with a former colleague at a major university and said that I was concerned about the university’s failure to protect speech. His response, sadly, was that there was so much hate out there that the university had to “do something.” I did not pursue it for fear of getting into an argument as I was aware that we would not be aligned in our attitudes, and these days there seems to be no such thing as a “friendly disagreement.”
Agreed! (I watch Gutfeld, too.)
Thanks, Jim. Amy Wax’s article was first published in Imprimis, a free Hillsdale publication, for those of you who don’t read the WSJ. The whole piece is an excellent read and is pretty discouraging on the negative side. But people like Prof. Wax who are going to speak out in spite of the fools who try to silence her are going to be more and more important. The UK action surprises and delights me!
Maybe he should take a look in the mirror. These folks have no clue that they are the source of so much of the “hate speech”; I suspect they wouldn’t want to be shut down, though, would they. Thanks, @rodin.
Another big lie is the students’ vile speeches attacking Trump and Republicans is not hate speech because they’re attacking “evil”.
This reminds me–last night (repeated broadcast) some of the kids from the high school were interviewed on Fox News Sunday. Afterward, the adults said how articulate they were. Really? They certainly had presentation skills, but in describing what they planned to do, they were clueless. In fact, they asked one girl what she hoped to accomplish, and she stumbled around and basically repeated her rhetoric. I hope their protesting is therapeutic, because it certainly isn’t informed or mature.
This is a radical position these days. Read it again: “When a university president speaks out in support of free speech” This is a radical position, which requires courage on his/her part to say publicly.
My God.
It is very sad, isn’t it? Too many of them think that they are doing the right thing by discouraging “controversial” speakers; others fear for their jobs. It’s only people like Robert Zimmer who speak out–because it’s the right thing to do. Fancy that.
This is why I never watch political debates. Winning presentation skills does not mean a winning argument. But too many people think they do these days . . .
i.e. Obama.
This is exactly why the centralization of government that has occurred since Woodrow Wilson is destroying The Republic. All it takes now to seize society’s resources is smooth babbling.
Higher education needs to be completely atomized.
The Massive Higher-Ed Scam You’ve Never Heard About.
Yes, Mrs. OS and I have been astounded at the gushing over their supposed verbal skills. They are articulate only in comparison to the average verbiage polluting our airwaves today which I guess shows at least something positive but we would not describe them as particularly competent in a historical context. However, why would we be surprised about their lack of presenting any sensible plan of action ? They are simply restating the leftist lines they have been saturated with without any cognitive analysis of whether the solutions advocated will be effective or even address the problems they wish to be solved. They have not been taught how to use the analytical skills needed to determine what is or could be effective or even that those skills exist.
Also they betray their lack of seriousness when they say they want to have a ‘conversation’ while demoralizing those who disagree with their solution by creating a ‘badge of shame’ for anyone who has been supported by the NRA, for example. To be taken seriously one must be serious.
To congratulate them for making an attempt to focus attention on the problem as they see it is probably a good thing. But to simply accept their analysis as brilliant or worthy of blind acceptance just because they’ve been traumatized is lunacy. They deserve to be heard but should not be blindly followed down a counter productive pathway.
It is well-documented that victims of trauma are rarely good eye witnesses. That is both understandable and forgivable. But we don’t make them our gurus. Let them heal from the trauma while we dispassionately investigate what happened and what can or cannot be done about preventing it in the future.
It’s especially annoying when they say it’s not political. Really.
I suppose that their demonstrations are also a way of empowering themselves. Whether it is really helpful in general–probably not. But it’s a free country.
Saying it’s not political is left-speak for, “Don’t you dare try to bring up a counter argument. And if you do we’ll have pre-established our position that you are just being political.” It’s used to preempt any attempt to counter their favored position using logical arguments and we should not acknowledge it as legitimate.
Any argument or discussion (if you prefer that term) concerning pending or proposed legislation is per se political, that’s the process we use to enact legislation. And it is wholly legitimate (I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover there is politics in Congress!) Having to defend that process just side tracks the discussion so any defense should be short and to the point, then move on. It’s like having to defend the proposition that water is wet, it’s a wholly defensible proposition but should never be present in any serious discussion as it only serves to expose the lack of seriousness of at least one party.
Bravo!
@rufusrjones : Your second link doesn’t work.
Thank you. https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/26/thad-russell-education-academia-podcast
Thank you for the good news. The two bits above point up a problem and the solution.
This is a college campus. What is needed is neither a discussion nor a conversation: what is needed is a lecture.
Actually a series of lectures starting in middle-school. The behavior we are seeing is what you get when you mix activism with education. As with work, you can ‘activize’ on your own time and your own place (a clue: the campus doesn’t belong to students).
It is customary for a dean or president to give a speech to incoming freshman. A list of don’ts and penalties would be a good start, as would having the little
bastardsyoung adults sign papers demonstrating their understanding of their specific status as degree penitents rather than part owners of a super fun place to learn.Excellent suggestions, TBA!! Especially teaching them early!
Putting his book on hold at the library. Thanks for the link!