Category Archives: Free Speech

Knoxville News Sentinel 8:05 a.m. ET April 16, 2017

Letters to the Editor(Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

My letter is in response to Greg Johnsons column of Feb.17, in which he implied that individual rights of free speech are not protected at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville (UTK)and asserted that UTK should adopt the University of Chicagos Principles on Free Speech.

UTK has worked hard to develop policies that protect free speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education (FIRE; https://www.thefire.org/) is a watchdog on free speech. FIRE has rated more than 500 institutions, and awarded their highest rating (green light) for free speech to only 29, including UTK. These top 29 schools include the University of Florida, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, Purdue, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, William and Mary, and the University of Chicago. Adoption of the Chicago Principles is unnecessary, because UTK, through its own carefully considered policies, has already received the same high rating for free speech as the University of Chicago.

Students are given an unfettered opportunity to explore new ideas at UTK, some of which may be contradictory to beliefs that they hold. The intellectual strength of a university depends on competition of ideas and the ability of everyone to exercise their individual rights of free speech and expression. The process can be inhibited when students, faculty, or staff fear they may be punished for expressing viewpoints that are unpopular with the general public, university administrators, or government officials.

Free expression of ideas requires an open mind and the belief that the opinions of others deserve to be heard. Controversial topics should be debated vigorously, but without personal attacks against those holding opposing viewpoints. We should acknowledge the possibility that those with differing viewpoints may be right, or at least have a valid point. At the end of the conversation, our understanding of opposing viewpoints should have increased, even though we may not be swayed by their argument. We should also be motivated to refine our arguments more convincingly for the next conversation.

Bonnie H. Ownley, Knoxville

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2oMQt3o

View post:
Letter: UT works hard to develop free speech - Knoxville News Sentinel

Free Speech Dies in Berkeley FrontPage Magazine Berkeley was renowned as the home of the free speech movement. But those leftists who believed that free speech was an effective tactic for their cause have long since been upstaged by those who believe that dissent must be silenced by any means.

See the original post:
Free Speech Dies in Berkeley - FrontPage Magazine

The campus of Wellesley College.

An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for shutting down some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.

The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.

Advertisement

Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech, the editorial states. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.

The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of the Atlantic magazine, tweeted that the Wellesley News piece was one of the more frightening editorials Ive ever read.

Alexis Zhang, an editor at The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, wrote on Twitter that, As an alum, couldnt disagree more w/ @Wellesley_News. Free expression is the bedrock of higher ed and campus groupthink bad for all.

But Sharvari Johari, a co-editor-in-chief of the Wellesley News, defended the piece, and said it was a response to internal incidents on campus, including private e-mail threads and comments on Facebook that she declined to detail.

Advertisement

We dont want our community to be a place where hate speech goes unchecked, she said.

The newspapers website was not working Friday; Johari said it may have crashed due to higher-than-normal traffic.

Debate about free speech at Wellesley has intensified since last month, when Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, spoke on campus during Censorship Awareness Week.

Kipnis has stirred controversy for arguing that attempts by colleges to combat sexual assault have contributed to sexual paranoia and a skyrocketing sense of vulnerability among female students.

At Wellesley, Kipnis was denounced by a student group called Sexual Assault Awareness for Everyone, which released a video blasting her views and arguing that white feminism is not feminism.

A week before the speech, student protesters at Middlebury College shut down a talk by conservative social scientist Charles Murray and injured a Middlebury professor who was with him.

About a week after Kipnis spoke, a group of Wellesley professors who are part of the colleges Commission on Race, Ethnicity, and Equity argued that Wellesley should think more carefully before inviting speakers like Kipnis. The professors argued that speakers who are brought to campus to encourage debate can instead stifle productive debate by enabling the bullying of disempowered groups.

There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty, the professors wrote in an e-mail to the campus community that was obtained by FIRE, a group that seeks to promote free speech on college campuses.

Seeking to ease tensions, Wellesleys president, Paula A. Johnson, wrote a letter to the campus community April 4 in defense of free expression.

Wellesley supports diverse opinions and the rights of all members of our community to voice their views, Johnson wrote. Active, open debate enriches and illuminates it is fundamental to how we create new ways of seeing and thinking.

Thomas Cushman, the Wellesley professor who invited Kipnis, said he has generally been proud of the tolerance the college has shown for provocative speakers, despite what he called an uptick in intolerance this semester.

He said he believes the Wellesley News editorial represents only one viewpoint on campus.

I dont think one group of students necessarily speaks for the entire student body at Wellesley College, Cushman said.

More here:
Wellesley College student newspaper ignites free-speech debate ... - The Boston Globe

Many members of our community, including students, alumnae and faculty, have criticized the Wellesley community for becoming an environment where free speech is not allowed or is a violated right. Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers who cannot exist in the real world. However, we fundamentally disagree with that characterization, and we disagree with the idea that free speech is infringed upon at Wellesley. Rather, our Wellesley community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.

Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.

This being said, the tone surrounding the current discourse is becoming increasingly hostile. Wellesley College is an institution whose aim is to educate. Students who come to Wellesley hail from a variety of diverse backgrounds. With this diversity comes previously-held biases that are in part the products of home environments. Wellesley forces us to both recognize and grow from these beliefs, as is the mark of a good college education. However, as students, it is important to recognize that this process does not occur without bumps along the way. It is inevitable that there will be moments in this growth process where mistakes will happen and controversial statements will be said. However, we argue that these questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks.

We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way. It is vital that we encourage people to correct and learn from their mistakes rather than berate them for a lack of education they could not control. While it is expected that these lessons will be difficult and often personal, holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.

This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.

We at The Wellesley News, are not interested in any type of tone policing. The emotional labor required to educate people is immense and is additional weight that is put on those who are already forced to defend their human rights. There is no denying that problematic opinions need to be addressed in order to stop Wellesley from becoming a place where hate speech and casual discrimination is okay. However, as a community we need to make an effort to have this dialogue in a constructive and educational way in order to build our community up. Talk-back, protest videos and personal correspondences are also ways to have a constructive dialogue. Let us first bridge the gap between students in our community before we resort to personal attacks. Our student body is not only smart, it is also kind. Let us demonstrate that through productive dialogue.

Read more here:
Free speech is not violated at Wellesley - The Wellesley News

Zerorez, based in St. Louis Park, filed suit shortly before the Summer Olympics hoping to clarify whether the USOC could prohibit it from cheering for Minnesota athletes on social media. The company said it wanted to tweet "Congrats to the 11 Minnesotans competing in 10 different sports at the Rio 2016 Olympics!" but could not for fear of a lawsuit by the USOC.

U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright in Minneapolis dismissed the case April 4, ruling that, because the USOC never sued or even threatened to sue Zerorez, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

"The USOC won this battle, but the war over free speech is not over," said the company's attorney, Aaron Hall of the JUX Law Firm in Minneapolis, in a statement following the ruling. "We believe our Constitutional freedom of speech gives patriotic small businesses the right to express their Olympic spirit on social media."

Federal law gives the USOC authority to license and control trademark terms beyond that granted to other organizations such as the NFL or Major League Baseball. The U.S. Olympic Committee is not government-funded, so it uses licensing deals to fund Team USA.

The USOC's trademark guidelines prohibit any business that isn't an official sponsor of the U.S. team from even mentioning the Summer Olympics or the team on their social media platforms. The guidelines don't apply to individuals or news outlets.

The Zerorez suit said the USOC's written guidelines, threats against other businesses and comments in news reports leading up to the Olympics amounted to an infringement of free-speech rights, even if the USOC never actually sued the company.

"We just felt bullied," Zerorez owner Michael Kaplan said last year when he launched the suit against the USOC.

Zerorez hasn't decided whether to appeal Wright's decision, Hall said.

"We hope the U.S. Olympic Committee will stop threatening the free speech rights of patriotic small businesses," Hall said. "To avoid future legal action, the U.S. Olympic Committee should acknowledge small businesses can reference Olympic events on social media without violating the law, and stop bullying patriotic businesses who express their Olympic spirit online."

The USOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday evening.

The Pioneer Press is a Forum News Service media partner.

Read more here:
Court tosses Minnesota company's free speech suit against U.S. ... - Duluth News Tribune

Twitter dropped a lawsuit against the U.S. government after the Trump administration withdrew a demand the social media site identify a user critical of President Trump. The photo above shows a sign outside the company's San Francisco headquarters. (Jeff Chiu / AP)

Twitter's most bellicose presidential user often tweets taunts and accusations, but when someone else does it, they're out of line. A "rogue" government account that criticizes President Donald Trump's policies anonymously was in danger last week of being unmasked after the Department of Homeland Security issued a summons demanding the social media company turn over its users' identities. The government withdrew the demand a day after Twitter sued.

It was obvious from the start that the government had no legal grounds to make the demand. Even one top Trump aide with his own Twitter scandal, Dan Scavino, argues that federal employees have a right to free speech on their own time, using their own accounts and equipment.

Since Trump's inauguration, dozens of Twitter accounts have sprung up claiming to be run by current and former federal employees of different agencies, including @alt_labor and @RogueEPAstaff. Users posting to @ALT_uscis, the account targeted by the DHS summons, have critiqued the government's immigration policies and revealed issues within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office.

DHS tried to legally justify the summons by invoking an obscure federal law that allows it to obtain documents related to importations of merchandise. But as Twitter's lawyers pointed out in their suit, this case "plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the importation of merchandise."

Rather, the cloudy legal grounds were part of the administration's gusto for quieting dissent. It's what Trump did when he ordered the National Park Service to temporarily stop tweeting after it posted photos of crowds at his inauguration, effectively confirming weak attendance.

Social media companies do have a responsibility to forgo privacy concerns when national security is at risk, say, when terrorists communicate via online accounts. When the FBI demanded last year that Apple unlock the iPhone used by one San Bernardino terrorist, Apple had an unmet obligation to cooperate. But some grumbling desk workers and their 140-character pent-up frustrations do not threaten America just the president's sensitivities.

Besides, the federal employees supposedly running the @ALT_uscis account have every right to engage in this form of political activity. Just ask Scavino, the president's social media director, who tweeted on April 1 encouraging the "#TrumpTrain" to oust a GOP member who opposed the Republican health care bill.

From the left and right, Scavino was accused of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using taxpayer facilities, equipment or work time to engage in political activity. But as the White House was quick to point out in Scavino's defense, the law also notes that employees are free to do as they please outside the office.

The Trump administration's demand that Twitter expose and endanger its critics was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. A summons as outrageous as that deserved its quick demise.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Continued here:
Editorial: Twitter reaffirms its users' right to free speech - The Daily Camera

Groups gathered to protest Milo Yiannocpoulos in Boulder, Colo. on January 25, 2017.

Groups gathered to protest Milo Yiannocpoulos in Boulder, Colo. on January 25, 2017.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Colorado is breaking new ground in the topic of free speech on college campuses. Gov. Hickenlooper signed a bill that bans restricting areas for free speech on college campuses last Tuesday.

Currently at UCCS, University Spokesman Tom Hutton, said free speech is allowed anywhere on campus.

However, students are required to schedule a protest for a certain space, and wait for approval before anything can happen.

Some students voiced their concerns that the form is an unnecessary convenience.

"I understand the University is concerned with how the protests may be viewed and how everything will go down," said Josh French, a freshman at UCCS. "Doing that slight disservice of waiting a week to fill out the papers, can severely inhibit the topic."

Others disagreed stating dedicated areas to protest are helpful to students.

"I'd much more prefer to have it in a designated area," said Brian McFadden. "I mean if you're walking to class now, you might have to walk through protests potentially."

Keep in mind: scheduling a protest will not go away at UCCS once this law goes into effect.

"If you have to fill out a form to practice free speech, that's not free speech," said John Schavey, a senior at UCCS.

CU officials said they've worked closely with the bill sponsors and made it clear there won't be big changes to CU-Boulder or CU-Denver.

Continue reading here:
Students react to Hickenlooper's ban on free speech zones - KRDO

Whats gone wrong on our college campuses and how can we fix it? This past week, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, a knowledgeable supporter of Americas criminal justice system and thoughtful critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, was repeatedly shouted down by protesters at UCLA, then silenced and forced to escape with a police escort the next day, during what should have been her talk at Claremont McKenna College.

These incidents follow the February riot that forced the cancellation of a Milo Yiannopoulos talk at UC Berkeley, and the March shout-down at Middlebury College of conservative Charles Murray, followed by the violent attack that sent Murrays liberal interlocutor, Professor Allison Stanger, to the hospital.

The immediate lesson of the UCLA shout-down and the Claremont shut-down is that widespread condemnation by all sides of the Berkeley and Middlebury incidents has not restored campus free speech. On the contrary, Americas colleges continue their descent into low-grade anarchy.

Why is that? The immediate explanation is that leftist college students are furious at the election of Donald Trump as president. Yet often-illiberal demonstrations swept over the nations campuses during the 201516 academic year, well before Trump became a factor. The crisis of free speech has also been aggravated by a rising tide of shout-downs and disruptions of pro-Israel speakers since 2014. Before that, I reported in 2013 on a few of the more egregious silencing incidents sparked by the campus fossil-fuel divestment movement, then in full swing. In fact, I began covering campus silencing incidents for NRO in 2001, when I wrote about angry UC Berkeley students storming the offices of the Daily Californian to destroy a run of papers containing a David Horowitz ad opposing reparations for slavery. Todays problems are hardly new.

Back in 2001, as reported by ABC News, thefts of campus newspapers had increased by 600 percent over the previous decade and campus speeches by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, anti-preferences activist Ward Connerly, and Second Amendment supporter Charlton Heston were often disrupted or canceled. Here is a very partial excerpt from David Horowitzs description of his reception at various campuses in the early 2000s: I once had to terminate a talk prematurely despite the presence of thirty armed police and four bodyguards at Berkeley. I had to be protected by twelve armed police and a German Shepard at the University of Michigan. I was rushed by clearly deranged individuals and saved only by the intervention of a bodyguard, twice at M.I.T. and Princeton. (Sixteen years later, Horowitz has become the latest example of a campus free speech shut-down.)

A San Francisco Chronicle article from 2000 describes an incident at Berkeley in which 200 demonstrators broke through police barricades and blocked a talk by then-former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The incident was publicly condemned in a column by Berkeley mayor Shirley Dean and condemned as well in a joint letter by several members of the original Berkeley Free Speech Movement. These interventions by prestigious voices on the left were fueled by cumulative frustration over several years of leftist demonstrations, particularly at the UC campus, disrupting speeches of those they view as criminal in one form or another. Targets of UC Berkeley disruptions stretching from the mid 1980s to the year 2000 included Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor, and former NATO commander General Wesley Clark.

The first in this series of UC Berkeley speaker disruptions of the post-1960s era seems to have been the 1983 shout-down down of Ronald Reagans United Nations ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, by hecklers opposed to U.S. policy in El Salvador. Although her words were drowned out, Kirkpatrick went through the motions of reading her talk. Her follow-up Berkeley lecture was canceled, however. This incident, at a time when shout-downs were rare, sparked a national discussion and broad condemnation. Yet far from this condemnation preventing further disruptions, the virus quickly spread. Kirkpatrick was shouted down two weeks later at the University of Minnesota and her scheduled 1983 commencement address at Smith was canceled. The current era of campus shout-downs, shut-downs, and disinvitations had arrived. Yet the origins of this era lay still further back in time.

The campus disruptions of the 1960s and early 1970s set the pattern for all that was to follow from the mid 1980s onward. Most important for our purposes, Yales Woodward Report of 1974, the classic defense of campus free speech, identified a series of shout-downs and disinvitations stretching back eleven years as the pattern that Yale would need to break. What the Woodward Report called Yales failures began in 1963 when President Kingman Brewster, in the interest of law and order and in deference to New Havens black community, canceled a scheduled talk by segregationist Alabama governor George C. Wallace at the height of the Civil Rights struggle.

Keep in mind that the reports chairman, Yale historian C. Vann Woodward, had advised Thurgood Marshalls legal team as it argued for school desegregation in what became the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954. And Woodwards book, The Strange Case of Jim Crow, had been dubbed the historical bible of the civil rights movement by Martin Luther King Jr. himself. Yet this Civil Rights hero, along with other liberal faculty members at Yale, pressured President Brewster to defend the freedom of speakers such as George Wallace.

None of this is to deny that the problem of campus shout-downs and disinvitations is getting worse. Yet its important to keep in mind that todays pattern is an intensification of a long-standing crisis that has had its ups and downs since the early Sixties, but has not fundamentally changed in form for well over five decades. Whats clear after 50-some years is that the academy has proven itself incapable of solving its free-speech problem on its own. Lets see why.

We can think of the challenges to free-speech since the Sixties as washing over our campuses in four great waves. The first wave (Young Radicals) was made up of the illiberal and violent Sixties student radicals. Notwithstanding the views of the Free Speech Movement veterans who condemned the Berkeley Netanyahu shut-down of 2000, a great many of the Sixties radicals rejected classical-liberal conceptions of freedom in favor of a neo-Marxist analysis. In this view, free speech and constitutional democracy are tools used by the ruling class to suppress dissent and protect an oppressive society.

The second antifree-speech wave (Long March) hit colleges in the early-to-mid 1980s, as the radicals left graduate school and took up junior faculty positions, bringing their suspicions of free speech with them. These faculty did away with required Western Civilization courses as well, helping to launch the academic culture war that began at Stanford in 1987. After allied leftist faculty and students succeeded in abolishing Stanfords Western Civilization requirement in 1988, student demonstrators began demanding speech codes (partly in hopes of silencing students who had challenged them during the Western Civilization debate)

The third antifree-speech wave (Takeover) began in the mid 1990s, as the older generation of professors began to retire. At this point, the younger and more radical generation of faculty members reached critical mass. That is, they had the numbers to control hiring. Not believing in the classical-liberal vision of a marketplace of ideas, these faculty used the tenure system, not to seek out and protect the finest scholarly representatives of diverse perspectives, but to solidify an intellectual monopoly of the Left. By the 2000s, the tenured radicals constituted a controlling majority in many social science and humanities departments, and stood as the most powerful plurality in the university as a whole.

The fourth antifree-speech wave (Transformed Generation) consists of the late Millennial students who began demanding safe-spaces and trigger warnings around 2014, just as the number of university shout-downs and disinvitations began to spike. Free-speech advocate Gregg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt attribute the new student sensitivities, in part, to parental coddling by the Baby Boomers. No doubt there is truth to this, but this college generations K12 curriculum also differed dramatically from past standards.

Although Lynne Cheney, former National Endowment for the Humanities chairwoman under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, managed to convince the U.S. Senate to condemn the proposed new multiculturalist National History Standards of 1994, the left-leaning post-Sixties generation of K12 teachers adopted them in practice anyway. The rest of the curriculum was also quickly remodeled along lines that stressed group conflict and Americas sins. The generation that brought us micro-aggressions and white privilege duly entered college 20 years later.

The key to solving the campus free-speech crisis lies in the decade-long interregnum between the radical Sixties and the kick-off of the campus culture wars in the mid 1980s. This was also a period of relative calm in the country as a whole.

The widely praised Woodward Report of 1974 marked the effective end of the Young Radicals phase (wave one), and ushered in the decade-long restoration of campus free speech. That restoration ended with the Jeane Kirkpatrick shout-down at Berkeley in 1983, which initiated the second wave of free-speech crisis.

What distinguished the Woodward Report of 1974 from Berkeleys response to the Kirkpatrick shout-down of 1983 was the issue of discipline. The Woodward Report not only eloquently upheld the principle of free speech, it insisted that students who shouted down visiting speakers must be disciplined. The Woodward Report also established a sanctions policy, and a system for warning disruptive students of potential disciplinary consequences. This approach carried the day at Yale and elsewhere during the post-Sixties restoration of free speech. In effect, the Woodward Report and its positive national reception helped return the credible threat of discipline for speaker shout-downs that had been abandoned by craven administrators during the 1960s.

A decade after the Woodward Report, things changed. While the Berkeley faculty as a whole condemned the students who shouted down Jeane Kirkpatrick in 1983, a faculty resolution to have Kirkpatricks hecklers punished was defeated. This was likely a concession to the many junior faculty who openly defended Kirkpatricks disruptors on the grounds that oppressors have no free-speech rights. Although many observers felt that disciplinary action against Kirkpatricks hecklers had to be taken, the UC Board of Regents also declined to follow up on a demand for discipline initiated by Regents chairman Glenn Campbell. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley chancellor Ira Heyman indicated that no disciplinary action would be taken.

With more leftist faculty streaming in over succeeding years, those who favored discipline for disruptors grew less powerful. The days when even (or especially) liberal Civil Rights heroes understood the need to grant free speech to segregationists were over. The policy of disciplinary sanctions for shout-downs instituted to national praise by Yale in 1974, definitively went by the boards at Berkeley in 1983. Speaker disruptions then slowly grew in frequency and force at Berkeley and beyond. So, the refusal to discipline the students who shouted down Kirkpatrick ultimately helped lock todays quasi-anarchic anti-speech system into place.

The thuggishness and violence of the Sixties demonstrations at their height exceeded what we see today. Yet todays chronic, pervasive, and steadily growing vice-grip of campus orthodoxy, punctuated and enforced by occasional shout-downs and meeting takeovers, is in its way more dangerous.

There are plenty of indications that campus free speech is more besieged nowadays than its been in decades. Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and microaggressions signal a cultural sea-change. Anti-Israel shout-downs and disruptions have multiplied dramatically. These are no longer occasional embarrassing episodes but the fruit of a deliberate strategy devised by influential sectors of the campus left. FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which keeps an index of disinvitations and shout-downs, says the overall rate of all such incidents is increasing.

Yet statistics tell only part of the story. We cant assume a constant rate of speakers attempting to counter campus orthodoxies. Top comedians and an unknowable number of conservative speakers now avoid college campuses. At some point, a decreasing rate of shout-downs may actually indicate that free speech, along with resistance to campus orthodoxies, has been successfully crushed. And in a world of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a few well-publicized shout-downs may suffice to chill speech and encourage violent demonstrators across the entire country. Finally, in contrast to the Sixties, todays illiberal demonstrators, disruptive and ornery though they may seem, may actually be allied with significant sections of the faculty and administration (as KC Johnson has cogently argued).

So there are important reasons to believe that todays free-speech crisis is locked-in and unchangeable in the absence of outside intervention. The alliance of radical students with dominant sections of the faculty (precisely those faculty members who reject classical liberalism) means that few C. Vann Woodwards remain to pressure administrators into defending free speech. Meanwhile, the ideologically based studies programs (various ethnic studies, womens studies, and environmental studies majors) have grown to challenge the conventional academic departments in size and influence. This creates a large and permanent faculty and student constituency schooled in suspicion of classic liberalism.

Ultimately, the public has granted the academy certain rights and privileges special financial and policy protections (especially tenure) on the understanding that institutions of higher education will pursue truth under conditions of free inquiry and fairness to all points of view. There is a kind of implicit bargain or social contract here, and the academy has so consistently and persistently violated its side of the bargain that public action is now necessary.

In particular, the tenure system, designed to ensure freedom of speech and secure the marketplace of ideas, has been abused to create an illiberal intellectual monopoly. And precisely because of this monopolistic abuse of the unique privilege of academic tenure, along with the unresolved, decades-long crisis of campus free speech, the traditional policy presumption in favor of local control can no longer be sustained in this sector.

That is why state and federal legislators cannot look the other way but must act to restore our most basic liberties to the academy. And while legislation eliminating restrictive speech codes and so-called free-speech zones is very much in order, the underlying problem will not be solved until administrators are pressed to restore discipline for speaker shout-downs. The administrative refusal to discipline disruptors, which took off in the Sixties and resumed with the Kirkpatrick incident in 1983, must be reversed. Only a return to the policies and ethos of the Woodward Report offers hope.

There are several state-level campus free-speech bills on offer, but only the model legislation proposed in the Goldwater Report systematically addresses the problem of discipline for campus shout-downs. I have also offered a plan to tie federal aid to higher education to a restoration of discipline for speaker shout-downs, among other things.

The tattered campus climate of free speech ultimately rests on deeper cultural shifts that must be addressed by educators over the long-term. Yet legislative action to protect campus free speech could serve as the shock that initiates cultural change.

Short of legislative steps to restore discipline for disruption, even bipartisan condemnation of campus shout-downs will fail, as it has failed repeatedly in the past. The ranks of authentically liberal faculty members are far too thinned to do what Woodward and his colleagues did in 1974. Without an intervention by the public through its elected representatives, the structure of the anti-free-speech university is locked-in for the foreseeable future.

After 54 years, we are indeed at an inflection point. Act now, or campus free speech will be lost for a lifetime.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at[emailprotected].

Follow this link:
Campus Free Speech Crisis | National Review - National Review

Fresno Bee

Today's college students don't know meaning of 'free speech' Fresno Bee The main objective was to prevent students from gathering into groups of more than two or three because of the volatility of the students' speech. Their speech was considered hostile, provocative and unjust. I submit present-day students have taken on ...

Read this article:
Today's college students don't know meaning of 'free speech' - Fresno Bee

Campuses should foster free speech News & Observer According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), only one of the campuses of the University of North Carolina system UNC-Chapel Hill fully protects freedom of speech, earning it a green light on FIRE's rating system. Another ... and more »

Read more here:
Campuses should foster free speech - News & Observer