Is Free Speech On Campus Really 'Doing Just Fine'?

 Tom Lindsay

As a former college professor and university senior administrator, I was saddened to read a recent op-ed by Columbia University's president, Lee Bollinger. Titled, “Free Speech on Campus Is Doing Just Fine, Thank You,” the immediate object of Bollinger’s ire is President Trump’s March Executive Order, which threatens universities that fail to uphold the First Amendment with the loss of federal research dollars. Bollinger labels this a “transparent exercise in politics,” one which ignores the fact that today’s schools are friendlier to “open debate than the nation as a whole.” Moreover, “fierce arguments” over “acceptable speech” have occurred often over the past century and have “also been indispensable to building a society that embraces the First Amendment.” These “exchanges over the boundaries of campus speech should . . . be welcomed rather than reviled.”

Before proceeding to examine his case, note that no one is “reviling” “exchanges” over acceptable speech—so long as those exchanges are verbal, not physical. Lawful, verbal exchanges are precisely what the First Amendment makes possible. But Bollinger here seems to conflate opposition to free speech with protected free speech. Of course, the very same First Amendment that makes possible free speech makes it possible to criticize both the concept of free speech and to protest and/or speak against others’ views. But we violate the First Amendment when we prevent others from speaking or listening at an authorized event. This is what is reviling.

But such concern over campus intolerance is overblown, writes Bollinger. He cites a 2016 Knight Foundation survey, which found that “78 percent of college students reported they favor an open learning environment that includes offensive views,” whereas the U.S. adult population tallies only 66 percent in support of such “uninhibited discourse.”

This is a fair point and it is good news for campus free speech—or, it would be good news, if Knight had stopped its surveys in 2016. But it didn’t. Bollinger does not cite Knight’s latest study of student attitudes toward campus free speech. Had he done so, his essay would perhaps have been less dismissive of the Executive Order. (As of this date, Bollinger's office has not replied to my request for a comment.)

Knight’s 2019 survey is troubling, not only to me, but also—given his reliance on the 2016 survey—to Bollinger’s thesis that “free speech on campus is doing just fine.” This year’s Knight survey found that, by a more than two to one margin (68% to 31%) college students “largely agree” that the campus climate today prevents some students from being able truly to speak their minds for fear of offending someone.

Equally alarmingly, a majority of students now believe that it is sometimes acceptable to shout down speakers or prevent them from speaking. Worse, the numbers of students harboring this intolerant attitude are growing. In just one year (December 2017 to December 2018), the proportion of students who now deem it sometimes or always acceptable to shout down speakers grew from 37% to 51%. Moreover, the percentage who answered that it is never acceptable dropped 14 percentage points to 48%.

In sum, only a minority of students today believe in the First Amendment.

Bollinger also cites another national study, this time from the nonpartisan campus free-speech watchdog, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Bollinger writes, “According to FIRE . . . only 11 speakers were disinvited from addressing college audiences in 2018. This is a minuscule fraction of the universe of speakers who express their views annually on American campuses.”

But Bollinger also neglects FIRE’s latest assessment of campus free speech, titled “Speaker shout-down support gets double-digit boost in one year.” The FIRE study chronicles a “particularly notable uptick in campus shout-downs and calls for disinvitation.” FIRE finds that, as of this June, “14 speakers have been disinvited and an additional nine have been threatened with disinvitation.” It adds that “this year’s combined 23 cases is higher than 2018’s total of 16 — and we’re not even halfway through the year.”

It gets worse: FIRE’s latest report also finds that “16% of students believe it is at least ‘sometimes acceptable’ to use violence to stop a speech, a six-point increase from 2017.”

These most-recent studies leave me hard-pressed to agree that free speech on campus is doing just fine.

To his credit, Bollinger next argues that, because he views even one disinvitation as “one too many,” he “will personally introduce controversial figures who were rejected elsewhere.” Good for him, and good for Columbia’s students!

However, he next opines that student “concern and discomfort about speech that is hateful, racist, or noxious in other ways” is “nothing unreasonable or historically unprecedented.” After all, he tells us, “a number of other democracies take a less absolute view on this topic—yet remain democracies.”  His claim is problematic on two grounds: First, no one is objecting to student “concern and discomfort” over hateful or racist speech. We are all concerned over that. But neither concern nor discomfort entitles us to abridge the speech rights of others.

Second, other, less-free-speech-protecting democracies “remain democracies” because democracy means only that the majority rules. But the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent overbearing majorities from depriving minority viewpoints of their chance to speak and be heard. As Jefferson put it, majority rule, to be “rightful,” must also be “reasonable.” Therefore, noting that “other democracies” lack our robust protection of free speech proves little.

SOURCE