The issue of free speech on college campuses has undergone a significant transformation over the past few decades. Historically, despite heated disputes over the content of speech, the general consensus was that everyone had the right to express their opinions and face criticism accordingly. However, this perspective has shifted dramatically over time, leading to a more contentious environment regarding what can and should be said on college campuses.
The first prominent challenge to the value of free speech came from Professor Herbert Marcuse in 1969. Marcuse, a Marxist, argued that certain types of speech, particularly those supporting existing socioeconomic arrangements, should not be tolerated. He believed that suppressing such speech would allow dissident voices to be heard more clearly. Marcuse’s ideas have found echoes in contemporary academia, where many scholars advocate for severe restrictions on what they label as “hate speech.” This term often extends to any communication that these academics find disagreeable, creating a subjective and potentially restrictive environment for free expression.
On the other hand, there are still many who advocate for unrestricted freedom of speech, aligning with Justice Louis Brandeis’s belief that the remedy for bad speech is more speech. This perspective maintains that exposure to diverse viewpoints, including those that may be offensive or controversial, is essential for the development of critical thinking and the advancement of knowledge.
A notable position in this debate is taken by University of Pennsylvania political-science professor Sigal R. Ben-Porath in her book Cancel Wars: How Universities Can Foster Free Speech, Promote Inclusion, and Renew Democracy. While Ben-Porath is pro-free speech, she includes numerous caveats. She suggests that while colleges should allow free speech, they must also protect vulnerable students from speech that might be “painful.” Her approach, though well-intentioned, may inadvertently support those who wish to suppress speech deemed “harmful” or “exclusionary.”
Ben-Porath argues that institutions have a responsibility to correct the outcomes of speech that excludes some individuals on campus. This can lead to subjective interpretations of what constitutes “exclusionary” speech, often resulting in actions against speech that challenges progressive ideas. For instance, she suggests that schools should support students who feel hurt by certain speech and foster “better” speech. This could put administrators in the position of taking sides in ideological disputes, which can stifle the learning process that comes from students grappling with controversial ideas on their own.
The current climate of free speech on college campuses is marked by several high-profile incidents that illustrate the tensions between protecting free speech and addressing the concerns of students who feel harmed by certain types of speech. One such incident involved Penn law professor Amy Wax, who faced severe backlash and calls for her dismissal after making controversial statements about race and immigration. Critics argued that her comments were harmful and exclusionary, while supporters contended that she was exercising her right to free speech and contributing to an important, albeit contentious, dialogue.
Similarly, there have been numerous cases where invited speakers have been shouted down or disinvited from speaking engagements due to their views. These incidents highlight the growing trend of “no-platforming,” where individuals with unpopular or controversial opinions are denied the opportunity to speak. While proponents of no-platforming argue that it prevents the spread of harmful ideas, opponents contend that it undermines the principles of free speech and open debate that are fundamental to higher education.
One of the challenges in addressing the issue of free speech on college campuses is the subjective nature of what constitutes “harmful” or “exclusionary” speech. For instance, arguing that racial preference policies have led to the admission of some students who aren’t academically competitive can be seen as a legitimate critique of affirmative action by some, while others may view it as a personal affront and demand action against the speaker. This subjectivity creates a difficult environment for administrators, who must balance the protection of free speech with the need to create an inclusive and supportive campus community.
Ben-Porath’s suggestion that schools have the burden of “supporting” students and fostering not just more but “better” speech puts school officials in a position of having to take sides when students complain that they were upset at hearing something. They’re supposed to sponsor events to assuage the students and counteract the “hurtful” speech. This approach, while aiming to create a more inclusive environment, can inadvertently lead to increased polarization and a chilling effect on free speech.
Furthermore, there is no reason to worry about the claims of “harm” and “pain” we hear from students. If the administration were to politely respond to such complaints by saying, “If you dislike what someone said, then go ahead and make your response, but it’s not the school’s place to intervene,” the students might denounce the school, but that would be the end of it. Students are not going to drop out or transfer just because someone they dislike was allowed to speak.
Repeatedly, Ben-Porath expresses her sympathy for students (and others) who have been “harmed” by insensitive speech. In a remarkable passage, she writes about legislation to end Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaching in public schools and court cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop (holding that Colorado had illegally punished a baker for declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding) and Meriwether v. Shawnee State (holding that a professor could not be fired because he didn’t want to use a student’s preferred pronouns). She declares that speech protection has been used “as a tool to allow the powerful—business owners and corporations, professors and employers, police and administrators—to silence and censor those under their authority, especially those who aim to dissent or are members of minority groups.”
That claim is absurd. It is perfectly reasonable for public officials to want to stop divisive and misleading CRT teaching that takes time away from real subjects; many parents of all races have demanded that they do so. When Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he wasn’t silencing anyone, merely declining to do something that conflicted with his beliefs. When Professor Nicholas Meriwether used what a student declared were the wrong pronouns, he censored no one.
It is also noteworthy that Ben-Porath makes much of the Nikole Hannah-Jones case at UNC, stating that it invoked “white supremacist” views. That is what the irate journalist said when UNC declined to grant her—an individual with no prior teaching experience—immediate tenure. But “white supremacy” had nothing whatever to do with it. Professor Michael Munger explained in this Martin Center article that there was nothing amiss in the university’s handling of the offer to her.
The upshot is that the author is far too ready to credit what “progressives” say. Ben-Porath also maintains that universities, as a part of their obligation to “renew democracy,” should correct mistaken student beliefs about such matters as climate change and vaccine safety. Between protecting students from “harmful” speech and trying to change “undemocratic” ideas, universities have a lot to do.
But what about disruptive students who shout down “controversial” speakers and demand the termination of professors they dislike? Our author is against those tactics but can’t resist writing that we shouldn’t judge the students too harshly. Here’s what she says: “The generational change around open expression might best not be interpreted as intolerance to diverse views but rather as embracing diverse people and an effort to reconcile that embrace with protections of intolerant speech. Young people are looking to broaden the benefits of speech so that more can enjoy them, including those with minority identities.”
Much as I believe in being charitable and giving people the benefit of the doubt, that defense is preposterous. The unruly mob that attacked Charles Murray at Middlebury College and the students who demand that Amy Wax be fired are not trying to “broaden the benefits of speech.” They could try to respond to ideas they disagree with by making counter-arguments, but instead they automatically turn angry and intolerant. If they wanted to help “diverse people” speak, they could do so, but they don’t. Marcusian repression is what drives them, not some noble sentiment.
So, what’s actually good about free speech? Ben-Porath writes, “The introduction of views that go beyond the realm of acceptable to most campus members is a blessing, even when it comes in disguise.” Echoing John Stuart Mill’s position, Ben-Porath observes that it is beneficial for students to understand opposing arguments, which helps reduce bitter polarization and strengthens the individual who has to argue his or her position in light of differing views. She wants universities to ensure that there’s more of that. I agree but don’t think Ben-Porath’s interventionist program for them will accomplish much good.
As I see it, free speech and free trade are similar. If the government leaves people free to trade, then you have free trade; once it begins making exceptions, you slide into increasingly regulated trade. By the same token, if a university allows all speech, then you have free speech; once it takes it upon itself to “protect” against some speech and promote other speech, you don’t have free speech but instead regulated speech.
Yes, there are plenty of people who are unhappy with some of the trade that takes place, but on the whole we are much better off with free trade than with whatever set of restrictions might come about. Similarly, there are plenty of people who are unhappy with some of what is said on campus, but we are better off with wide-open freedom of speech than with campus policies meant to improve upon it.
College officials should announce a complete free-speech policy and stop fretting about the feelings of students who say they’ve been harmed.
To preserve free speech on campuses, it’s crucial for university officials to adopt a comprehensive free-speech policy that does not waver in the face of complaints about hurt feelings. This approach ensures that the marketplace of ideas remains open and that students learn to navigate and respond to challenging viewpoints, a vital part of their educational experience.
The debate over free speech on college campuses is complex and multifaceted. While the intention behind protecting vulnerable students from harmful speech is commendable, the implementation of such policies can lead to unintended consequences. Subjective interpretations of what constitutes harmful or exclusionary speech can stifle free expression and hinder the development of critical thinking skills. It is essential for universities to strike a balance that upholds the principles of free speech while fostering an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives can be shared and debated. By doing so, colleges can ensure that they remain places of open inquiry and robust intellectual engagement.
