Campus Free Speech Issues

Campus speech issues are spreading across American universities. A recent survey found that 55% of students find it difficult to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus, the highest percentage ever recorded for any issue. This reflects growing tensions around controversial topics on college campuses.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently released its largest report on campus free speech, drawing from over 58,000 student responses across 250+ institutions. Some key findings include:

• 52% of students think blocking others from attending a campus speech is at least "rarely" acceptable, up from 45% last year
• 32% of students deem using violence to stop a campus speech as at least "rarely" acceptable, up from 27% a year prior
• 69% of students believe it's acceptable to shout down a speaker

The report also ranked schools on their free speech climate. For the second consecutive year, Harvard University ranked lowest for free speech, with Columbia University and New York University also receiving "Abysmal" ratings. On the other end of the spectrum, the University of Virginia and Michigan Technological University topped the list for free speech friendliness.

Self-censorship remains a concern, particularly among conservative students. 34% of very conservative students reported self-censoring "very" or "fairly" often, compared to only 15% of very liberal students.

These trends highlight the ongoing challenge of balancing free expression with other concerns on college campuses. As FIRE president Greg Lukianoff noted, "Colleges need to reassert their mantle of being marketplaces of ideas, not bubbles of groupthink and censorship."

First Amendment Protections and Limitations

The First Amendment protects student speech, but with boundaries and legal precedents. Key Supreme Court rulings have shaped the landscape of campus free speech:

• Brandenburg v. Ohio: Ruled that inflammatory speech is protected unless it provokes immediate violent action
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: Established the "fighting words" concept as a narrow exception to the First Amendment
• Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.: Determined that schools have limited authority over off-campus student speech unless it causes serious disruption

The First Amendment protects even contemptible symbols when displayed publicly, but not when used to directly threaten or intimidate individuals. Direct threats or harassment aimed at specific individuals cross the line from protected speech into punishable conduct.

The "heckler's veto" has no place in free speech protections. Attempts at censorship to combat hate speech have often backfired, as seen in the University of Michigan's brief foray into speech codes in the late '80s.

Legal battles like those against Clovis Community College underline that no viewpoint should be stifled simply because it's unpopular. The First Amendment's protections for students, while broad, aren't without limits, but those limits are carefully calibrated to ensure all voices have a place in societal dialogue.

Legal Challenges and Recent Cases

The Clovis Community College case exemplifies administrative overreach in censoring student speech. A federal court prohibited viewpoint discrimination, mandated policy overhaul, required First Amendment training for administrators, and ordered damages paid to plaintiffs.

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot discipline students for off-campus speech that doesn't cause significant disruption. This verdict indicates that schools can't extend their disciplinary reach beyond school grounds based on whim or discomfort.

These decisions impact day-to-day reality on campuses. Administrators can no longer use overbroad policies to gag disagreeable speech. Students will have less fear in voicing their thoughts and viewpoints, even those that challenge dominant narratives.

"Defending free speech isn't just about protecting agreeable words; it's about safeguarding the constitutional bedrock that allows all kinds of speech to circulate, challenge, and enrich our democracy."

Balancing Free Speech and Campus Safety

Schools must balance free speech and campus safety without creating "safe spaces" at the expense of free expression. Courts have laid clear markers on this issue:

• Tinker v. Des Moines: Student speech can only be curtailed if it would cause a "substantial disruption" to school operations
• Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education: Schools could be held liable for student-on-student harassment if they were "deliberately indifferent" to it

Effective strategies for balancing free speech and safety include:

1. Implementing anti-bullying policies that target behavior rather than suppress speech
2. Establishing clearly defined zones for protests
3. Fostering dialogue through structured debates and speaker series

Technology has complicated matters, with social media becoming arenas for off-campus speech that reverberates back on campus. Schools need robust digital conduct policies that respect free speech while curbing genuine threats and cyberbullying.

Balancing First Amendment rights with campus safety requires a nuanced, contextual approach grounded in clear legal standards and proactive educational strategies. This dual commitment ensures that campuses remain vibrant forums for diverse ideas and voices.

Free speech on campuses isn't just a right; it's the bedrock of our democracy. Upholding this principle, even when it makes us uncomfortable, is essential for fostering genuine dialogue and growth in educational institutions.

1. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. 2023 College Free Speech Rankings. FIRE. 2023.
2. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
3. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
4. Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
5. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
6. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)