Freedom of Speech on College Campuses
By: Abby Brown
The First Amendment, otherwise known as the infamous phrase “freedom of speech,” has recently garnered increased attention from debates erupting on college campuses nationwide. Most notably, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which concerns both political and humanitarian issues, has dramatically polarized many college communities. Students feel empowered to protest for what they believe is right, resulting in hostile environments for other students with opposing viewpoints. Through these recent events, the flaws in freedom of speech policies have come to light. Colleges are now faced with the crucial decision: should they allow freedom of speech in all contexts, or try to control what can and cannot be said on campus? Seeing as how many students’ rights to ”free speech” have transformed into an excuse for hate speech, it is greatly detrimental to the well-being of the student body as a whole to allow complete freedom of speech on college campuses.
Before unpacking that though, it is important to define what free speech really means. In the Constitution, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” However, the First Amendment doesn’t protect these rights if the disseminated ideas contain obscenity, true threats, or fighting words. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted of advocating for xenophobic and illegal conduct while being recorded by the media. However, the conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court, creating a precedent that a state cannot punish speech that advocates for violence or illegal conduct unless it incites or is likely to incite immediate lawless action. This standard narrows down prosecutable cases to only those with immediate effect, significantly raising the threshold of permitted speech. The tolerance for threatening language set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court leaves most damaging hate speech legally excusable for college students. This simply shouldn’t be allowed.
For this reason, private educational institutions should not be subject to the same standards of the Constitution. That being said, many people argue against that distinction, saying that following the same regulations that people abide by in the real world is a valuable lesson; students learn how to interact with each other and share opposing ideas like they would in society at large. For example, the ACLU stated that “the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech,” and “depriving students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive.” They argue that college is supposed to be a place where discussion is fostered and ideas are freely shared, whether or not it makes students “uncomfortable.” While this is certainly true, without clear guidelines this freedom can easily be abused. It can be convenient to excuse harmful language by reasoning that it will exist in the real world and that students will have to navigate post-college. The issue with that argument is that college is simply not representative of the real world. College campuses are isolated bubbles that scarcely reflect how broader society functions. In college, students must pay tuition, live in dorms with other students, and get three meals served to them daily in a cafeteria. Allowing the college bubble to be judged under the same standards as the real world is simply unrealistic and impractical, especially since students are still developing and learning how to become responsible members of society.
Pro Palestine/Anti-Israel rally near Columbia University https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-department-of-education-to-scrutinize-antisemitism-on-at-least-5-more-campuses/
If anything, the college environment is more similar to high schools and middle schools than the real world. These institutions usually, if not always, have zero-tolerance policies when it comes to any bullying or marginalization of students. Students can share their ideas and have effective educational discussions without the threat of harmful hate speech. These policies are in place in order to ensure that students feel safe in their learning environments. The same should be true for college students. Student’s well-being should be prioritized even further considering many are removed from their family and pre-existing support systems. Furthermore, feeling safe on college campuses is crucial due to the majority of students living together on campus and having increased access to resources that could promote violence. Colleges must balance teaching students how to have respectful discussions with opposing viewpoints, while also allowing them to express their authentic political views.
For administrators though, the line between overregulation and protecting students is undefined. No one can judge every scenario objectively on a case-by-case basis. In the recent congressional hearing this past December about anti-semitism at several colleges, for example, strong political biases ran deep through the panel of university presidents. Claudine Gay and Elizabeth Magill—the presidents of Harvard and Penn respectively—both stated that calling for the genocide of Jews would not necessarily be punished. Instead, it would depend on the context of the situation. These responses solidified the idea that regulating hate speech on a situational basis allows administrators to implement their own underlying biases into policy. Colleges would excuse certain views, in this case antisemitism, from consequences, while punishing students who express speech that does not align with the university’s political standpoint. It is impossible to define a concrete line as to what types of speech colleges should allow on campus. These institutions’ first priority should be to foster environments where all students feel safe and supported. They must also teach students the skills required for respectful and productive discussions, especially around difficult topics, to build respect for people of opposing ideals. In 1961, when Clark Kerr, the former chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, faced criticism for allowing students to share communist viewpoints, famously stated, “The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas.” This is the approach colleges should take when faced with the issue of freedom of speech. Colleges should work towards judging speech based on safety and intention. While this certainly isn’t a foolproof system, it can create a precedent in a college for how students should communicate their opinions. Colleges should foster environments where students are allowed to express their viewpoints, while ensuring it is done in a safe, respectful manner. Teaching students how to communicate effectively is a tool that will greatly benefit both the college and students in the present, and prepare them for success in future endeavors.
