Unserious Objections to Bolstering Free Speech on Campus

Wisconsin lawmakers are taking the issue of free speech on campus seriously again—and, inexplicably, that has some people upset.

Legislators recently advanced a proposal based on the commonsense idea that anyone “lawfully present on campus may protest or demonstrate,” as long as they do not interfere with someone else’s ability to do the same.

The idea has bounced around the Capitol in Madison for three years while lawmakers in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina have adopted similar solutions to protecting free expression.

And yet, despite provisions in the proposal that protect students and faculty on both sides of ideological debates, critics are mustering a series of unserious objections.

One Wisconsin lawmaker called the proposal “an unnecessary repetition of the U.S. Constitution.” But there’s ample evidence that legislators should remind Wisconsin students and administrators of the First Amendment.

In 2016, disruptive protesters tried to block political commentator Ben Shapiro’s speech at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, at one point forming a wall in front of the podium.

The student newspaper quoted some attendees who agreed with Shapiro and others who did not—but the comments generally showed an appreciation for the chance to hear ideas rarely presented on campus.

In 2018, campus security at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College stopped Polly Olsen, a student, from handing out Valentine’s Day cards that said “Jesus Loves You.” The campus police said Olsen was engaged in “suspicious activity” and told her that she was “soliciting” on campus outside of a free-speech zone. No word yet on what customers were buying.

Another opponent of the proposal called it “a partisan waste of time.” However, the Wisconsin university regents are operating under rules similar to the legislative proposal, and the policies have allowed students with different political views to express their opinions.

In 2017, students invited Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich to speak on the right to bear arms. Protesters gathered to demonstrate and told The Daily Cardinal that they were not going to shout Pavlich down because of the regents’ recent decision to consider consequences, including possible suspension or expulsion, for disruptive students.

As a result, the protesters held their demonstration and were quoted in the paper, and Pavlich finished her talk. That’s how groups are supposed to hold a civil exchange of ideas.

SOURCE