By David French
Friday, October 27, 2017
There are a few ways to respond to radical demands for
campus censorship.
One is rather simple: Enforce decades of constitutional
jurisprudence, and clearly signal to disruptive protesters that lawbreaking is
grounds for serious discipline. Follow the law and the debate about free speech
won’t end, but the wave of shout-downs will pass. Students, after all, don’t
want to sacrifice their shot at a degree to stop, say, Ben Shapiro or Charles
Murray from speaking. As a general rule, they’ll do what the college allows
them to do, and nothing more.
Then there’s the opposite response: A number of
progressive administrators, professors, and activists (over the objection of
more liberty-minded colleagues) are seeking to redefine and ultimately
eliminate the very concept of a “marketplace of ideas” on college campuses.
They argue that the ultimate mission of the university is education, not
providing a platform for any crazy idea someone wants to share, and that school
administrators should thus have the right to determine who speaks on campus and
how they speak based on whether the speech in question furthers this
educational mission.
That, in a nutshell, is Yale Law School professor (and
former dean) Robert Post’s argument in an extended piece in Vox. To justify an administrative role
in determining not just who speaks on campus but what they are permitted to
say, Professor Post says this:
The entire purpose of a university
is to educate and to expand knowledge, and so everything a university does must
be justified by reference to these twin purposes. These objectives govern all
university action, inside and outside the classroom; they are as applicable to
nonprofessional speech as they are to student and faculty work.
This is remarkably similar to the arguments made to my
colleague Charlie Cooke in a recent and heated debate at Kenyon College. If
speech is so offensive, hurtful, or maybe just plain wrong that administrators
believe it would impair the educational mission of the university, then, the
thinking goes, they should have the power to restrict that expression.
There are multiple problems with this argument, but I’ll
focus on two: It’s both unlawful and absurdly impractical.
First, the law. When analyzing a free-speech case, the
first question you need to ask is, “Who is speaking?” In the context of a
public university, there are usually three relevant speakers: administrators,
faculty, and students.
Administrators have the general ability to define the
mission and purpose of their schools’ academic departments. They can mandate,
for example, that their science departments operate within the parameters of
the scientific method and on key issues apply accepted scientific conclusions.
But this power isn’t unlimited. They can’t lawfully decide, say, that
evolutionary biology will be taught only by atheists. In that case, the speech
of the administrators collides with the First Amendment rights of the
professors, and the professors win.
Similarly, while professors have the right to shape and
control their classroom (some permit profanity and insults while others sharply
limit discussion) and even have the right to require students, within the
classroom context, to defend views they may find abhorrent, their control is
not absolute. They can’t mark down conservatives for being conservative or
silence Christians for being Christian. They can grade ideas and expression for
academic rigor, but they cannot discriminate purely on the basis of ideology or
faith. Just as you can’t “punch a Nazi,” you can’t “flunk a Nazi” if their work
meets the standards of the class.
One of my old cases is instructive. Shortly after
California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure that defined marriage
as the union of a man and a woman, a speech professor at Los Angeles City
College walked into his class and declared that any person who voted for Proposition
8 was a “fascist bastard.” One of his students, a young man named Jonathan
Lopez, decided to respond in a speech assignment. Lopez was asked to deliver a
speech on “the topic of his choice,” and he chose to discuss and define his
Christian faith. In the course of discussing the fundamentals of his faith, he
briefly addressed marriage. His professor stopped his speech, angrily
confronted Lopez, and then dismissed the class. Rather than grade his speech,
he wrote on the evaluation paper, “Ask God what your grade is.” The professor’s
“speech” thus collided with the student’s First Amendment rights, and the
student’s rights prevailed.
In sum, individuals at each layer of university life enjoy considerable First Amendment
protection. Indeed, no lesser authority than the Supreme Court has decisively
declared that “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere
more vital than in the community of American schools.” In an extended passage
in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, State
University of New York, the court put the issue in the starkest of terms:
The essentiality of freedom in the
community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should
underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide
and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders
in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. . . .
Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to
evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. [Emphasis added.]
Applying these principles and precedents, lower courts
have time and again struck down speech codes, granted equal access to
university facilities, required equal access to student funding, and vindicated
professors claiming lost job opportunities because of ideologically motivated
viewpoint discrimination. If high-school students or teachers don’t “shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse
gate,” then adult college students
enjoy at least equivalent rights.
A public university simply cannot do as Professor Post
urges and essentially define all speech as university speech and place it under
the umbrella of the school’s educational mission. Yet even if the First
Amendment did not exist (or does not apply — like at private universities),
Professor Post’s proposed top-down control of speech would be unworkable for
all but those colleges with specific ideological or religious missions (think
Bob Jones or Oberlin.)
Is it really the case that the university will be the
arbiter of proper speech for campus Republicans, Democrats, Christians,
atheists, Jews, and Muslims? Can it possibly craft a fair definition of
“offensive” speech that satisfies the numerous and often-at-odds interest
groups that populate any campus? Is it even intellectually prepared to
anticipate what speech is educationally valuable and what is not?
Experience with modern waves of political correctness has
already given us a rather decisive answer. Campuses invariably pick sides, they
invariably impose double standards, and they always make fools of themselves.
Think of Professor Post’s institution, Yale. Not long ago it briefly became a
national laughingstock as radical students mobilized against two professors,
Nicholas and Erika Christakis, in large part because the latter had the
audacity to suggest that adult students could make their own choices about
Halloween costumes.
If a private institution wishes to impose the kind of
“education” that Professor Post urges, then it certainly can. It can do what
religious colleges do: define an ideological mission, inform students and
faculty in no uncertain terms that the purpose of the university is to advance
that mission, and then limit speech and expression on campus that undermines
that purpose. But there are costs to that approach: You limit your pool of
student applicants, you repel faculty who seek greater liberty, and you change
the definition of the school in the public imagination. And that’s a price
places like Yale and Harvard aren’t willing to pay.
I almost want a
public university to adopt the Post approach. Let’s see them try. At the
conclusion of his piece he says, “The root and fiber of the university is not
equivalent to the public sphere. If a university believes that its educational
mission requires it to prohibit all outside speakers, or to impose stringent
tests of professional competence on all speakers allowed to address the campus,
it would and should be free to do so.” It “would” be free to do so? Oh really?
Earlier in the piece, he declares, “The cardinal First Amendment rule of
viewpoint neutrality has absolutely no relevance to the selection of university
speakers.” The Supreme Court begs to differ.
If a school follows Post’s advice, the resulting legal
defeat would be so decisive that it would serve as a warning for all those
tempted to follow its example. The First Amendment does, in fact, offer
extensive protections on campus. Generations of precedent teach a clear lesson:
So long as men and women retain the courage to defend their liberties,
university censorship is doomed to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment