Category Archives: Free Speech

As recently reported in the New York Times, a recent Knight Foundation survey of nearly 12,000 high school students has found that such students support for the First Amendments free speech protections is stronger today than it has been in the last 12 years.

As far as it goes, this is good news given the avalanche of unfriendly free speech policies and actions that have swept over higher education in recent yearse.g., trigger warnings; micro-aggression stipulations; speaker disruptions and dis-invitations; overly intrusive and chilling bias reporting systems; and the relegation of student expression to tiny free speech zones on campus. According to the Times, 91 percent of the high school students believe that individuals should be allowed to express unpopular opinions.

That said, the support is limited to the First Amendment as a general concept. As Jonathan Sotsky of the Knight Foundation told the Times, Their support is tempered depending on the kind of speech and where its deliveredthe devil is in the details. In particular, support for free speech falls precipitously to 45 percent when the speech is offensive to others and made in public, and falls even lower, to 43%, when the offensive speech is on social media.

We can derive at least four points or lessons from these findings. First, the difference between support for free speech in the abstract and in particular cases is nothing new under the civil liberty sun. Such sociologists and political scientists as Samuel Stouffer, Herbert McClosky, and John Sullivan have repeatedly found it since the beginning of serious survey research on civil liberties in the 1950s. Reflecting the preoccupations of the time, general support in the past dropped off when subjects were asked about the speech rights of such political outsiders as communists and hate groups. Today young people are concerned about personal identity and self-respect, so drop offs are most prominent in domains dealing with personal social media. Furthermore, it is not surprising that people are more willing to support a right in the abstract than when its application entails either controversy or potential harm to others or society.

That said, it is also true that the defense right of free speech matters only when there is pressure to censor it. Speech expressing popular viewpoints has no need of protection. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thoughtnot free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. (U.S. v. Schwimmer, 1929, dissenting opinion)

Second, we need to recognize the special concerns for free speech posed by social media. Many colleagues and students have told me that the most significant reason for expressive conformity on campus is the fear of being bullied on social mediaa claim backed up by commentators more generally. On the one hand, social media has expanded the forum for discussion and debate. On the other hand, its misuse by moral and political bullies has cast a pall over the incentive to dissent and speak with intellectual honesty. We are only beginning to fathom how to deal constructively with this paradox. Young people today also appear to be more conflict averse than their predecessors were, which compounds the dilemma.

Though the survey did not delve into more specific or nuanced aspects of this concern, we should acknowledge that it is important to distinguish genuine bullying and intimidation from simply strongly disagreeing with someone. And there are shades of bullying. When bullying becomes harassment or a threat, it crosses into potential criminality. If it is painful yet not a threat or harassment, it can be normatively wrong but not illegal. The best remedy here is to encourage and educate people how to be civil with their disagreements, making sure that such education does not constitute bullying in its own right.

Third is the need to recognize the distinction between bullying, which is personally direct and meant to shame rather than inform, and causing offense by expressing unorthodox or controversial thoughts and ideas. As Jonathan Rauch has powerfully elucidated in his neo-classic work, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1993), the humanistic principle that no one should be allowed to express an idea that might offend or hurt someone else because of its ideational content is anathema to free speech and an open society. Truths or honest opinions are often very offensive to people. For example, evolution was deeply upsetting to many fundamentalists. (And I doubt that monkeys felt very good about linked to human beings!) Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in a famous 1971 case that the First Amendment protects offensive expression as a general matter. (Cohen v. California) As free speech philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn declared in Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948), To be afraid of an idea, any idea, is to be unfit for self-government.

Finally, the survey suggests something that is a recurrent problem: the need for education in free speech and First Amendment principles. Protecting highly controversial and offensive expression is counter-intuitive in many ways, but it is a counter-intuition that is necessary in a free society. It is also counter-intuitive to many to extend trial rights to criminals or to require the state to get search warrants in criminal cases. But the counter-intuition goes away once one is educated regarding the reasons why, which include the consequences of doing otherwise. Such education is a proper part of civic educationthe long-term weakening of which is another topic deeply worthy of discussion. Teaching civility in a manner that encourages vibrant debate rather than discouraging is also a matter of civic education.

Only with proper education will we be able to draw the appropriate lineslegal, or simply normative, depending on the issuebetween protecting upsetting speech and unjustified bullying.

This piece was originally published at The Open Inquiry Project.

Read the original:
The State of Free Speech among High School Students - Learn Liberty (blog)

In last Sundays State Journal, Daniel Bromleys guest column "Free speech in the age of Trump" starts with an eloquent description of the value of the free exchange of ideas and opinions made possible by free speech.

Unfortunately, he then makes egregious errors. He would deny the protection of the practice of free speech from speech considered divisive. He refers to speakers who appear under the banner of free speech, when in fact what is on offer is a campaign rally.

Speech that is different and challenging is inherently divisive. Advocacy is naturally encouraging people to join their cause. And speeches at campaign rallies are protected speech under the Constitution.

What is even worse is that the distinction Bromley wants to make is to be made by self-appointed groups who answer to nothing but their own opinions. Their criteria for blocking some speech is simply that they dont like the content. It is disturbing that educated people cannot understand that for speech to be genuinely free, any rare restrictions must be completely neutral as to political or social content.

Continue reading here:
Professor didn't understand free speech -- Wayne Shockley - Madison.com

The Ohio Supreme Courtis considering whether the free speech rights of people living with HIV were violated by a law requiring they disclose their status to potential sexual partners.

In July 2014, Orlando Batista was indicted in Hamilton County for felonious assault for having sex with his girlfriend without telling her hes HIV positive.

He admitted in court that he had also infected at least two other women, one of whom passed the virus on to their child. Batista was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison.

He appealed the conviction on the grounds that the law requiring him to disclose his HIV status violates his equal protection and free speech rights. Josh Thompson represented Batista before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Theres no doubt that Mr. Batistas behavior in this case was reprehensible. But this case is bigger than him," Thompson said. "This case is about all HIV positive people in Ohio. Its about the burden that is passed on his victims that requires them, for the rest of their life, to disclose their HIV status to potential sexual partners.

But on the other side was Samuel Peterson with the Attorney Generals office. He said the law is fair because it was very narrowly drawn to ensure that only one other person would know the others HIV status.

The General Assembly was very clearly concerned with informing potential sexual partners. That is an informed consent aspect. And it is necessary in order to promote personal autonomy and personal agency," Peterson said.

"It is a recognition that when you have sexual conduct, there are two parties to that conduct, and the other person has a right to know and has a right to be party to the decision to engage in the sexual conduct.

But also arguing for Batista was Avram Frey with the national Center for HIV Law and Policy. He said theres a stigma associated with HIV which prevents people from getting tested and seeking treatment. He said the law perpetuates that by unfairly discriminating against people with HIV with draconian punishment but not people with other diseases like HPV, which is much more prevalent.

Theres no rational basis for that distinction, for that singling out of people with HIV and AIDS. And accordingly, we respectfully submit that this Court should find that the true purpose underlying the statute is unconstitutional animus, Frey said.

But Peterson told Justice Judy French that the law was written regarding HIV and not other diseases not to discriminate against people with the virus, but because its different.

HIV is unlike, for example, hepatitis C, because there is a cure for hepatitis C. There is no cure for HIV."

Peterson admitted he didn't know if hepatitis C was curable when the law was written, but he added, "What is true at the time the statute was drawn is the second point, which is the primary transmission vector of HIV and hepatitis C is different.

The state says 22,355 Ohioans were living with HIV as of 2015. As of that year, Ohio reported the fourth-highest rate of HIV-related prosecutions for the previous decade, with 59 people convicted.

Read the original post:
Does HIV Disclosure Requirement Violate Free Speech? | WOSU ... - WOSU Public Media

Theres more to be said about freedom of speech

Re Campus free speech gets a needed defense (Editorial, May 13 ):

Exception should be taken to the Press-Telegrams editorial support of Assemblywoman Melissa Melendezs Campus Free Speech Act. Its my belief that most, if not all, colleges and universities support and encourage free speech. But there are other concerns that must be given priority and must be assured.

First is the safety and security of students, staff, faculty and visitors. Second is the safety and security of campus facilities, grounds and property which are in many instances are public assets.

These things must be assured, and if they cannot be, then it would be irresponsible of campuses to support the appearance of any person or group, irrespective of political alignment or controversial beliefs, solely for some ideal commitment to free speech.

On free speech: Not all speech should be considered free speech. I believe that our society has evolved. In the 21st century, should we accept and give platform to the type of speech that Hitler and fascists gave in the 1920s and 1930s? Should the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan be given a platform for that philosophy?

Colleges and universities are committed to free speech. But within institutions of higher learning, speech must be intellectually valid and rigorous and fact-based. The existence of differing opinions and beliefs keeps our society and country vibrant and growing. But, even opinions must be morally and ethically relevant.

Gary Murph, Bellflower

Running the government well isnt childs play

Re Thousands of toys meant for needy L.A. County children never made it to them (May 9):

The lack of oversight, incompetence and waste uncovered during an audit of every department of the Los Angeles County Childrens Trust Fund is only the tip of the iceberg of misuse, abuse and fraud at all levels of government.

And we want the government to manage our health care?

Lynn Wood, Long Beach

Russians didnt make people vote for Trump

Investigating Russian interference in our recent election is a waste of time and money. Do we really think a Hillary Clinton supporter would be so offended by reading the leaked DNC emails that they would vote for Donald Trump? Patently ridiculous.

As President Obama famously told Sen. John McCain in 2010 in a room full of people: The election is over. Democrats need to plan for 2020 and quit hoping for a do-over of 2016.

Advertisement

John Knapp, Long Beach

Obamas Wall St. speech will be about hypocrisy

Bill Maher, political commentator among other things, is noted as a liberals liberal, and also knows not to pull punches when it comes to hypocrisy. Thats why he took a shot at former President Obama for taking a $400,000 fee for a speech on Wall Street.

Yes, it was the same Obama who criticized the wealthiest 1 percent during the 2012 election and the same Obama who defended Hillary Clinton after she took huge fees for the same speech. In Mahers words: ethics for thee, but not for me.

Oren Woods, Long Beach

Leave sharks alone

Re We must take action against great white sharks (Letters, May 17):

The sharks sighted are juveniles, mostly less than 10 feet in length and less than a year old. They were born in Santa Monica Bay from the Northern mature population that migrates south to do that. Great Whites have gone there to give birth since the beginning of time. The youngsters feed on shallow-water dwellers like sting rays, halibut and small fish until they can grow to look for larger prey elsewhere. They should be left alone.

Elliott Thompson, Los Alamitos

Fashion watch

Re Wed gladly wear a romper, but well be the last one to do it (Tim Grobaty, May 16):

I, and the rest of the sighted world, would sincerely like to thank Tim Grobaty for rejecting the idea of ever wearing a romper, thus not striking us all blind.

Guy Rosenlof, Long Beach

Read the original here:
About free speech, there's much more to be said: Letters - Long Beach Press Telegram

Jim Smith never forgot the day he got arrested as a student at the University of California, Berkeley, 53 years ago.

Smith, who died at 72 on Mothers Day, wasnt alone. Almost 800 others were arrested in 1964 at a sit-in in Sproul Hall. Students were protesting university restrictions on campus political activities and their free speech. It was the start of the historic Free Speech Movement led by Mario Savo.

I met Smith years later when I was managing editor of the Press-Telegram, and he was a manager in our circulation department.

He would talk about his experience and how proud he was that he got involved. He called it his awakening on social and political issues.

He was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, according to his wife, Wendy. He was against the war in Vietnam, the war in Iraq and anything that he thought would inhibit free speech. He was for womens rights and tolerance for all people.

Almost until the day he died from pneumonia, Smith was engaged in social activism. He and his wife walked in the Los Angeles Womens March on Jan. 21, the day after President Trumps inauguration.

His passion for social causes worked perfectly with his job at the Press-Telegram in overseeing delivery of the newspaper.

He loved the idea that he was working at a place where the First Amendment was honored and fought for, his wife said. It was so important to him to have a free press and free speech.

Smith spent 22 years at the Press-Telegram delivering newspapers to driveways and vending machine. At one time, he was overseeing the delivery of almost one-half of the Press-Telegrams daily circulation.

He earned the title of Golden Boy for his work in turning around the operation of one of the papers bigger districts.

Smith was born April 6, 1945 in Compton, but his parents moved to Long Beach, where he grew up. He was class valedictorian at Lakewood High School but was not considering college because his family could not afford it.

But someone told him about scholarships. With his 4.0 GPA, he got a full scholarship to Berkeley, where he studied history and learned about civil disobedience.

Smith was the older of the Smith Brothers at the Press-Telegram. His younger brother, Bill, also spent years at the paper before moving to Long Beach Transit.

Advertisement

Jim also had his 15 minutes of fame at the paper when he was the subject of a column by Tim Grobaty, Working his butt off. The column is reprinted in Grobatys book, Im Dying Here, A Life in the Paper.

Ten years ago, Jim was driving down Seventh Street enjoying one of the many cigarettes he would smoke every day. When he was done, he flicked the cigarette out the window at Ximeno Avenue. Bad mistake. A cop was following Jim and issued him a ticket.

Jim was fined $416 and, worse, he had to do eight hours of community service, which consisted of raking and bagging loads of trash on the banks of the Santa Ana Freeway.

He was a 62-year-old then on his knees picking up trash and chopping tree limbs.

Throughout the day, workers took more than a few cigarette breaks. Seemed like we all smoked, Jim said.

Grobaty wrote, And when they were done with their cigarettes, what do you suppose they did with the butts? We know and we could tell you, but we dont want to get Smith into any more trouble.

Jim quit smoking six years ago.

Rich Archbold is public editor of the Press-Telegram and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. rarchbold@scng.com

Here is the original post:
In work and life, he stood for free speech: Rich Archbold - Long Beach Press Telegram

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist Wall Street Journal (subscription) Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist. We never said that candidates' comments should be limited to the here and now; we simply wanted to give them the chance to outline their ideas about the major issues, including those of current concern and ...

See the article here:
Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Partys manifesto pledges that a Conservative government will establish a Commission for Countering Extremism to identify examples of extremism and expose them, but concerns have been raised that the definition of extremism is so vague, it may be used as a fig leaf to persecute those with unfashionable opinions.

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said The word extremist has been robbed of all meaning by activists who use it against anyone who disagrees with them. Weve already seen a series of witch-hunts against people with traditional views.

This Commission on extremism might make a bad situation a whole lot worse.

You cant have [] this Commission for Countering Extremism denouncing people for not holding the correct views.

We will consider what new criminal offences might need to be created, and what new aggravated offences might need to be established, to defeat the extremists,the manifesto reads. However, writing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in February of this year, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted that a working definition of extremism had yet to be formulated.

[T]his policy area raises complex issues relating to freedom of speech and the importance of having a clear legal definition of extremism, she wrote, adding: These are issues that my department continues to consider and, as you know, we have committed to a full consultation on any new legislation before it is introduced.

Mr Hart warned: using the vague concept of extremism on its own as a basis for taking away freedoms is a serious risk to civil liberty.

People labelled extremists in their own day include Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Wilberforce and the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Today, people like Germaine Greer and Dame Jenni Murray are vilified for extreme views on transsexualism that actually represent the views of the great majority of people.

The policy is particularly troubling as the manifesto also sets out plans to apparently redesign the internet to filter out unwanted or undesirable communications.

In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content. Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline, the manifesto states, adding: Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.

Buzzfeed News has reported that senior Tories have confirmed the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

Jim Killock, of the Open Rights Group campaign, told BuzzFeed that under the proposals, Facebook and Google could end up having to decide what constitutes legal content, rather than allowing the courts to rule on the matter.

They wont get it right theyll behave in a risk-averse fashion, he said. Theyll censor more than they need to. I do not want Mark Zuckerberg to think of himself as judge and jury of what people can say in Britain.

Continued here:
Conservative 'Extremism' Plan to Crack Down on Free Speech Both On and Offline - Breitbart News

Democratic lawmakers took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to warn that the Trump administration's plan to dismantle US net neutrality rules imperils free speech at a time when an open platform for political dissent is needed more than ever.

The outpouring of opposition from Senate Democrats came one day before President Trump's Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai is expected to formally begin the process of killing the Obama-era rules on Thursday, despite broad public support for the principle that all internet content should be treated equally.

Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to prioritize or block legal content on their networks. It also means that they can't set up online fast lanes for deep-pocketed companies at the expense of startups. This open access principle is responsible for establishing the internet as an unprecedented platform for economic growth, civic engagement and free speech, according to net neutrality advocates.

During a series of Senate floor speeches, Democratic lawmakers repeatedly emphasized the importance of net neutrality for free speech online. And they made clear that the internet's role in facilitating unfettered public dialogue is especially crucial now, given Trump's hostile attitude toward the First Amendment, including his characterization of news organizations as "the enemy of the American people."

"Net neutrality has never been more important," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Democrat. "Allowing broadband providers to block or discriminate against certain content providers is a danger to free speech and freedom of our press. These principles are fundamental to our democracy. We should safeguard them by stopping this proposed repeal of the internet order."

Sen. Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, echoed that sentiment. "I have always called net neutrality the free speech issue of our time, because it embraces our most basic constitutional freedoms," he said. "Unrestricted public debate is vital to the functioning of our democracy. Now, perhaps more than ever, the need to preserve a free and open internet is abundantly clear."

Sen. Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire Democrat, pointed out the net neutrality is especially important to ensure that the internet is a "platform for traditionally underrepresented voices including women and minorities to be heard, which adds to our economic strength. An open internet serves as a platform to elevate voices that are underrepresented or marginalized in traditional mediaan experience many women in the field know all too well."

The nation's largest broadband companies hate the FCC's net neutrality policy because it subjects them to strict "common carrier" regulations that were originally intended to ensure that phone companies can't pick and choose what callsand callersto connect. These corporate giants have spent millions of dollars in recent years to attack the policy in federal court, Congress and at the FCC.

FCC Chairman Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, appears more than willing to do the bidding of the broadband industry. Last month, he announced a plan to dismantle the agency's net neutrality rules, effectively gutting the agency's ability to enforce strong open internet safeguards, and opening the door for ISPs to favor their own content or create paid online fast lanes in order to boost their profits.

Because Pai effectively controls the FCC, there's virtually nothing that Democratic lawmakers can do to thwart Pai's agenda, other than try to mobilize grassroots opposition "in every corner of the country," which they pledged to do in an open letter "to everyone who uses the internet" published Wednesday on TechCrunch.

Open internet advocates accuse Pai of putting the interests of the broadband industry ahead of the interests of the American people. "The Federal Communications Commission is not trying to help consumers by rolling back net neutrality protections," said Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat. "They are doing it to make it easier for the big cable companies to be in a position to shove out true and real competition."

Pai's crusade against the FCC's net neutrality rules is consistent with the broader campaign by the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers to roll back pro-consumer regulations across broad swaths of the US economy, according to Sen. Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat.

"This effort on net neutrality is just one piece of the Republicans' effort to dismantle the basic protections safeguarding American families," Markey said on the Senate floor. "Instead of protecting our privacy, our health care, our environment, or our net neutrality, the Republicans want to give it all away to their friends and allies in big corporations."

Pai's proposal will almost certainly be approved at Thursday's FCC May open meeting, launching several months of public comment and agency deliberation before a final decision.

Read more:
Here's How Trump's FCC Is Threatening Your Free Speech - Motherboard

Earlier this month, a professor at California State University, Fresno, berated the schools Students for Life group, going so far as to scrub out chalk messages that were part of the clubs university-approved pro-life display. Fresno State students also tried to efface the display, and the professor insisted that free speech was only permitted in the free speech zone, which had in fact been eliminated by the schools administration two years earlier.

Such incidents occur so frequently on college campuses these days that its easy for them to become white noise. When groups host conservative events on campus, they are most often greeted by protests, some of which have grown violent in recent months like the debacles greeting Charles Murray and Ann Coulter at Middlebury College and UCBerkeley respectively. And frequently, the colleges and universities involved acquiesce to student requests to shut down certain events with which they disagree. While groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Alliance Defending Freedom have long track records of legally (and successfully) protecting students rights oncampus, there has been little in the way of nationally coordinated free-speech movements bubbling up from students who have had enough of being shut down.

That changed just a few weeks ago, when 22 college students met at the University of Chicago, traveling from across the country, including from schools such as New York University, the University of Michigan, Princeton University, and Chicagos own DePaul University and University of Chicago. At the event, students offered presentations about the state of free speech on their campuses.

One student, Michael Hout, traveled to the weekend-long conference from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is a junior. After being involved in Democratic politics in his home state of Georgia, Hout sat on the national council of College Democrats and served as the groups chartering director, in charge of founding new chapters on campuses.

But after volunteering extensively in these capacities, he began to realize how strong his partys tendency to smother free speech truly was, and he eventually decided to leave the Democrats and become a registeredindependent, believing that he could do more to reform the party from the outside than from within. Today, he describes himself as a classical liberal.

Fed up with the lack of respect for free speech on their campuses, Hout and his fellow 21 conference attendees drafted a statement of principles, in which they say that they are united in our shared conviction that free expression is critical to our society, in spite of our differing backgrounds, perspectives, and ideologies.

Emboldened by the gathering, they formed a new, wholly student-run organization Students for Free Expression through which they hope to foster campus atmospheres that permit and even celebrate free speech. So far, their statement has garnered nearly 1000 signatures, and it remains open for anyone to sign.

We want to operate as the counterbalance on campuses, so that if theres an issue, were on the ground, Hout tells National Review in an interview. Though the exact contours of the group have yet to be set in stone, he imagines there will be some sort of education component to explain the value of free expression to fellow students, coupled with hosting events with FIRE speakers.

Were not looking to create another group to sponsor Milo [Yiannopoulos] or Ann Coulter. Thats not what this group is going to be, he adds. Not that theres anything wrong with inviting those speakers. But we want to be a more modest group to be a watchdog for free-speech rights, even at private universities, where students still have natural rights and should be aware of them.

More here:
National Student Group Seeks To Bolster Campus Free Speech - National Review

Alamy Stock Photo

The University of Missouri torn by conflict, built trust and crafted a workable campus-speech policy by relying on openness and the combined wisdom of faculty and administrators.

Last week Tennessee enacted a law designed to promote free speech on the states public-university campuses. I support free expression on campus and understand why politicians might have been motivated to protect it with legislation. But this sort of legislation is a clumsy instrument with which to craft academic policy, and university leaders in other states would be wise to quickly address free-speech issues head on. Delay invites speculation that faculty and administrators are at best indifferent to free-speech rights and risks further intervention by impatient politicians. Recent success at the University of Missouri can be a national model of how to do this well.

At Missouri, free speech has been a hot topic lately. In November 2015, the president of the university system and the chancellor of the Columbia campus ("Mizzou") resigned on the same day, in the wake of student protests concerning the universitys racial climate. (The events were vastly more complicated and involved several other issues unrelated to race, but this summary will do for now.)

Some observers denounced the student protesters for dragging the universitys name through the mud, flinging broad accusations of racism, and making unreasonable demands. Others applauded the students for their idealism, their strength of conviction, and their perseverance in the face of intimidation as well their tangible successes. In one particularly unfortunate moment, a professor shouted at a student and then pushed his camera in an effort to stop him from approaching and filming student protesters, and the confrontation became national news. She would ultimately be fired as a result.

Appointed interim chancellor in the aftermath of the resignations, Hank Foley knew he had free-speech problems. Journalists were questioning how the home of one of the worlds first (and best!) journalism schools could allow students to create a "no media" zone on the campus quad, as well as how a communications professor ended up in an argument that got so out of hand. Meanwhile, black students among others continued to face hateful speech, including criminal threats. Events on the quad had made at least one thing clear: Many on campus had no idea just what the rules were.

Responding to someone who posts on the now-defunct social media app Yik Yak, "Im going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see" is not especially tricky as a policy matter. University of Missouri police found him and arrested him. But when white students utter racial slurs near black students, the question is more complicated. In addition to drawing the line between unlawful harassment and criminal threats (which the university may regulate) and garden-variety racist stupidity (which is mostly protected speech), the university would need to decide all sorts of other speech-related questions presented by the protests and likely to recur.

For example, are students allowed to camp on the quad? The former chancellor allowed it (despite existing university rules prohibiting it), but perhaps that was bad policy. Can members of the media be excluded from part of the quad by students seeking refuge from cameras and interviews, and is the answer to that affected by the chancellors implicit permission for the students to erect a tent village? What are the rules concerning electronic amplification of voices and music? What about chalk? And putting aside questions about legal rules, how can we build a campus at which everyone feels welcome, free inquiry is encouraged, and the best ideals of higher education may flourish as a result?

In January of 2016, Mr. Foley, who had seen his predecessor take heat for inadequate consultation with faculty on such matters as governance of the medical school and graduate-student tuition waivers, and I, as chair of the MU Faculty Council, appointed the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on Protests, Public Spaces, Free Speech, and the Press. The faculty contingent included two free-speech experts, one from the law school and one from journalism. Administration members included the vice chancellor for student affairs, the police chief, and the vice chancellor for inclusion, diversity, and equity. We also appointed two student members and invited someone from the general counsels office to attend as an adviser.

Despite the committees broad representation, there were immediate complaints. One journalism student noted the lack of any students from his school on the committee roster. Others wondered whether the six faculty appointees had too little or perhaps too much connection to recent protests. Rather than attempting to please everyone by adding more and more committee members, we reassured everyone that the committees report would be purely advisory.

It would not enact regulations but would instead make recommendations to the chancellor and the Faculty Council, who would then work together to craft a final version. We also promised to publish the committees suggestions and to hold public forums, as well as smaller meetings with student groups especially interested in the committees work. These procedural promises built trust that the substance would eventually prove acceptable to a wide cross-section of the university community.

Further trust accrued in March 2016 when the committee recommended a statement reaffirming the universitys "commitment to free expression" that was modeled on a similar statement released by the University of Chicago and adopted elsewhere. The Faculty Council and the chancellor endorsed it.

Throughout the spring, the committee met to discuss drafts. The student committee members, chosen after consultation with student-government leaders, informed the committee about which proposed rules might incite student discontent. The adviser from the general counsels office provided background on how a Missouri statute could complicate the First Amendment analysis concerning regulations of university property.

In late May 2016, the committee chair transmitted the committees detailed recommendations to the chancellor and me. I shared the report with the Faculty Council, and the chancellor emailed all faculty, staff, and students a link to the committee web page where the draft rules had been posted. It didnt take long for suggested improvements to appear in my inbox. This past fall, we held public meetings, and the committee prepared updated drafts incorporating changes suggested in written comments and at the forums.

Eventually, the Faculty Council approved a set of policies, and the chancellor directed staff to distill them into new provisions of the "Business Policy and Procedure Manual." A few days before leaving for his new job, Interim Chancellor Foley announced his formal approval of the policies, effective June 1, 2017.

The rules represent the shared wisdom of faculty and administration, as well as the staff who will enforce them and the students they will regulate. With a combination of expertise, patience, and goodwill, we have shown how shared governance is supposed to work and how free speech can be protected.

Ben Trachtenberg is an associate professor of law and chair of the Faculty Council at the University of Missouri.

Read more:
How Missouri Used Shared Governance to Preserve Free Speech ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)