Free speech is often referred to as the foundation of a democracy. There would be no elections or fair processes if not for the ability to openly express contradicting opinions. However, the virtuosity surrounding indeterminate free speech has been increasingly called into question over the past two decades. A symptom of 21st century political polarization, older generations attempt to censor the representation of marginalized groups in schools, whilst on the other end, Gen Z ponders the morality behind the inclusion of extremist takes.
Free speech campaigns amongst young Americans began at the University of California- Berkeley in 1964 when students escalated from sit-ins to large-scale rallies demanding repeals on speech restrictions about the civil rights and anti-war movements. The first notable legal case about free speech in schools was Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), where students silently protested the Vietnam War by donning peace sign embellished armbands. The court decision sided with the students, stipulating the First Amendment rights of students in school settings provided the protest poses no disruption to the educational process. An idea that continues to be supported today as a 2023 AP poll discovered 8 in 10 people regard silent protests as acceptable.
Despite support for this, some have identified a need for rules that regulate complete verbal agency, while on the contrary, others want to abolish all speech moratoriums. The policing option remains a nuanced one because of the consideration behind how far a college can oversee speech content before they encroach on students’ First Amendment rights. One solution has been free speech zones, designated areas for protests across campuses. Federal district courts that presided over cases like Khademi vs. South Orange County Community College (2002) have mandated for these sectors to not be located inaccessibly. In a 2020 Gallup poll funded by the Knight Foundation, 78% of college students reported favoring the provision of these safe spaces.
Another common practice is speech codes or statutes that limit the eligibility of certain words in lectures as an effort to reduce derogatory speech aimed at minority groups. This often results in the implementation of trigger warnings that notify audience members of potential sensitive subjects and the formation of bias teams whose goal is to investigate potential bias speech.
One of the main legal citations used in favor of these speech codes is Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942), where the Supreme Court decided “fighting words” that disrupt civil peace breach what is secured under the First Amendment. The other case commonly referenced is Watts vs. the United States (1969), in which the Supreme Court articulated that true threats against others do not receive First Amendment protection. However, various regional courts have asserted that colleges cannot forbid speech based solely on the message it conveys.Â
This is a standard students across the U.S. see their respective colleges fail to uphold due to the recent demobilization of pro-Palestinian protest groups. Specifically, student arrests for tent encampments at Columbia University as an attempt to vacate the area for commencement ceremonies. The university justified this through comments on the verbal and physical combative nature of some of the protestors. This coincides with a trend observed in a 2022 Knight Foundation funded IPSOS poll where 65% of students believe their college stifles their freedom of expression.Â
Yet the ability to stigmatize another group maintains legal legitimacy. For example with a Michigan court in Doe vs. University of Michigan (1989) and a California court in Corry vs. Leland Stanford Junior University (1995), which determined hate speech codes as an infringement on free speech. According to the same 2022 IPSOS poll, 59% of those surveyed concur with enabling all types of speech even if the contents may be considered offensive.
The 2020 Gallup poll also found that about 70% of college students agree both free speech and an inclusive society are “extremely important” to democracy. Even with similar numbers though, 21% of students believe efforts at diversity conflict with free speech “frequently” and 49% said “occasionally.” The First Amendment does encompass oppressive language as proven in National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie (1977), yet advocates argue the contradiction lies in trying to protect the comfortability of certain students. As reflected in the 2022 IPSOS poll where 17% of students revealed they’ve felt unsafe whilst 34% have felt uncomfortable at college due to remarks about their identity.Â
The main reason presented as to why offensive language should be restricted is the weight particular words possess in their etymology. Such applicable words represent an oppressive history of discrimination and violence that can trigger generational trauma, impeding students’ abilities to perform in and outside of the classroom. The favored take here for modern college students was unveiled in the aforementioned 2020 Gallup poll to be 78% proposing constraints on racial slurs and 71% in regards to costumes that stereotype racial and ethnic groups. Â
Regardless of these popular convictions, as mentioned before, colleges cannot ban speakers simply because of their own beliefs and impending speech content. Unless, the event is determined to be too dangerous, as was the case when student group Uncensored America from Penn State University invited alt-right group leader of the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes, to speak in 2022. The mounting tension between protestors, counter-protestors and police outside the venue forced the university to cancel the event last minute.Â
A decision right wing-associated civil liberties groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) would condemn. In fact, an effort has been made for legal bans against these decisions as seen with the conservative think tank Goldwater Institute drafting a proposal for Arizona to eliminate all free speech zones and codes as well as prevent disinviting controversial speakers. The reason supplied is the cultural phenomenon of “safetyism” or the belief system that emotional safety is a sacred value as described in the book, “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It’s argued colleges now create an “us vs. them” mentality through encouraging emotional reasoning that is preoccupied over microaggressions and intersectionality. Although, many opposers reframe these assertions as facades for extremists wanting a platform to disseminate misinformation.
Currently, the most well-accepted free speech policy on college campuses is the Chicago Statement, a declaration issued by the University of Chicago in 2014. In it, the university commits to the broadest permission of content, only restricted by the limitations on the First Amendment as outlined by the Supreme Court. This approach has now been adopted by 100+ institutions since its announcement.Â
- Conservative Groups on College Campuses
- Extra Resources