For the second year in a row, the percentage of large, prestigious colleges with overly-restrictive speech codes has dropped, according to an annual report released today by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. But this year’s report, “Spotlight on Speech Codes 2010: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses,” says that 71 percent of the 375 colleges and universities the group examined still maintain codes that it views as unconstitutional.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
16 Responses to Free-Speech Group Says Fewer Colleges Violate the First Amendment
22228715 - December 8, 2009 at 4:18 pm
After reading at the link… how can a private institution violate the First Amendment? Doesn’t the Constitution protect you from the actions of the government, and isn’t a private institution not the government (rather, another private entity?)
jesor - December 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Colleges that receive or disburse federal funds (i.e. research grants, federally subsidized student loans, Pell Grant, etc) must comply with the first Ammendment since they are acting for the government. My question is “has FIRE ever defended the rights of a liberal student who is discriminated against?”
wmartin46 - December 8, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Why would any legitimate college/university want to violate a student’s free speech rights? And if they do violate student’s rights–what does that say about the school’s legitimacy?
bag31050 - December 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Jesor, do you have a reference for that data? I have been looking for one for some time now.Thanks
smsantayana - December 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I understand where a school is coming from when they restrict free rights by doing things like having “free speech zones” I respect people’s right to free speech. But please remember it is one thing to express your opinion and another issue all together when people verbally harass passing students. This has happened to me multiple times. I have seen people practicing their right to free speech harass and pick fights with passing students. For my comfort and safety I would like to have people NOT yell at me from mutliple sides when I’m simply walking to class. If an organization is unable to regulate its own speech conduct then somebody has to for safety on campus.Its just a shame that some of us aren’t intellegent enough to regulate ourselves.
12019021 - December 8, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Jesor,Your argument is a sometimes winner, but not accepted at this time universally, as I understand it (this is not a legal opinion). Under Coleman v. Gettyburg College (2004) the U. S. Constitution applies only to public institutions. However there are some cases holding that private schools must follow freedom of speech guarantees under s state constitution. State v. Schmid (1980)(a New Jersey case). What you may be recalling that federal aid receipt carries mandatory free speech protections is a provision in the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act which states the sense of Congress that free speech be protected in all private colleges receiving federal aid. This provision, however is without any enforcement mechanism. There is a good discussion of this in Kaplin and Lee’s now massive treatise on the law of Higher Education. I don’t know that the latest HEA Reauthorization of the past year added to this in any way, I haven’t checked that. Rich
swish - December 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm
In answer to Jesor’s question in comment #2:Yes, a few. There was a student prevented from passing out PETA flyers, a bunch of students threatened with expulsion for distributing anti-Bush literature, a student news editor who inserted an anti-Bush comment (with an expletive in large print) in the paper, and a student journalist punished for writing about *The Vagina Monologues*. There was a gay student group denied recognition by its university for no reason, and a student who faced misconduct charges for silently protesting a military recruitment table with a sign.And I noticed two speakers they defended (William Ayers, Richard Dawkins) who might fit the bill.Also there were a few professors: one who criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians (dunno if that’s exactly “liberal,” but the professor was likely to be, I suppose), another who posted a cartoon and sign on his office door that offended Christians, and another suspended for opposing the Iraq war in an e-mail.In all of these cases, FIRE at least wrote a letter on behalf of the “liberals”. However, it’s quite true that the majority of their cases defend the free speech of people with views associated with the right wing.I’m liberal, and I generally approve of FIRE, even when they’re defending speech I myself find offensive. If I don’t like it, I’m free to produce my own speech to argue against it.
chemmilt - December 8, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Any infringement on free speech damages democracy. Granted, some speech can be offensive in the extreme and one certainly has the right to be offended! But, one can also ignore such speech (and, if it is disturbing the peace, call in the gendarmes–then, after all, it is your right to peace and quiet that is being downtrodden).Free speech is really the best way to let fanatics expose themselves. And, it is a good way to make fun of fanatics in turn. For instance, being allowed to poke fun at the self righteous is always welcome (to me at least). A good guffaw at Bible thumpers and Koran kissers is often needed and welcome.Saying what is OK to say and what is not is beyond any human arbiter. When in doubt, err on the side of people like the late Al Smith who once said “The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.” Unpopular sentiments have every bit as many rights to be spoken as are popular ones. Anyone who presumes to know exactly what is right and what is wrong needs a good belt (figuratively speaking) in his self-righteous puss. (A little Damon Runyun never hurt any body.)
rick1952 - December 8, 2009 at 9:43 pm
While I tend to agree with the maxim from the late Justice Douglas that the best answer to bad speech is good speech, I think it is important to keep in mind that words are very powerful. The language we use as well as accept from others shapes our environment, our attitudes and dispositions. So, while “regulation” in the sense of institutional authority needs to be circumscribed, it none-the-less can have important value.Many years ago I excoriated the leader of the Illinois chapter of the ACLU for defending a neo-nazi group that wanted to march in Skokie. He stated that the neo-nazis were equivalent to the civil rights marchers in the South during the 1960′s. I pointed out the obvious – the neo-nazis advocated denying full human rights to others based on race, while the civil rights movement advocated extending them to all without restriction. I thought the ACLU position was both stupid and offensive since the comparison its leader made was completely incorrect.When a group formally takes up defense of speech (whether words or symbolic speech) it provides an institutional imprimatur for the message of that speech. I think institutions, whether they are colleges or free speech advocacy organizations, need to keep in mind that defending an abstract principle takes on life when that principle is associated with a concrete situation. If institutions do not take a stand against speech that violates fundamental principles of human rights, then there may well be consequences for those rights.Private institutions should be clear about what they support and what they won’t support within the confines of their community. If “bad” speech happens, then “good” speech must immediately follow to challenge the “bad” speech and the institutions should clearly articulate why the “bad” speech is “bad” and is unacceptable within the community. Left unchallenged, “bad” speech can take on the appearance of being endorsed. As the saying goes, all that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to keep silent for a while. We, as individuals and as institutions, have a duty to challenge “bad” speech and seek to curb it.I recognize this is a difficult issue but efforts to curb “hate” speech need to be vigorous if we don’t want to create an atmosphere in which that speech gives rise to actions in support of that speech. And those who cannot explain what it is that they believe is right and what it is that they believe is wrong, and then challenge and limit what they believe is wrong are just as likely to get a “…good belt(figuratively and literally speaking)” from those who espouse hate. Nazi Germany certainly showed us how that can happen. The genocide in Rwanda did too. I do not think popularity is the proper criterion for determining what should or should not be said. Instead, we should be clear about our values and how our speech helps us both share and refine our understanding of our values.Of course, humility requires that I (and any who might share my opinion) must remain open to the possibility that I am wrong. But that must demonstrated to me through rational speech, not hate speech or harassment.
amnirov - December 9, 2009 at 8:57 am
Good going, Rick1952, you managed to instantly invoke Godwin. That means you lose.The long and short of it is that campus speech codes are historically used to bully reasonable outside voices just as often as they are used to try to combat those who are going to speak no matter what some code suggests.For example, campus antiabortion protestors are going to be heard no matter what poorly thought out regulation works its way through senate, but quite reasonable opinion will not only be chilled, but one is probably safe in assuming that the chilling of reasonable academic discourse was always the goal.No, the goal of campus hate speech regulations is not to limit hate speech, but to limit anything that a small, but vocal ideological minority wants to limit.
cwinton - December 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The argument Rick1952 makes brings to mind the 3 wise monkeys. As the saying goes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. As soon as he makes his statement regarding the ACLU “defending a neo-nazi group” he lost the moral high ground. The ACLU was defending the group’s rights, not the group’s message, an important distinction. Following his argument to its logical conclusion, any manner of repression can be justified, depending on who is in control, a position well understood by the Soviets in consolidating their control of what was to become the Soviet Union.
marka - December 9, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Ditto – I concur with 10 & 11. Rick1952 makes a cogent argument that has lots of support — in other parts of the world. Canada, for one, makes ‘hate speech’ a crime. And likewise suppresses ‘pornography’ more than we in the US. Britain does not protect newspapers and other media from charges of defamation as much as we do in the US. The US basically stands alone in its vigorous defense of free speech & expression — with attendant consequences. We also happen to live in one of the more heterogenous societies, with more freedoms extended to individuals than elsewhere, with greater need to accommodate more viewpoints. That means we tolerate more ‘abuse’ (pornography, for me, is the worst) that courts consider ‘speech’ or ‘expression’ (doesn’t convince me, but I can live with that looser boundary). I am especially leery of ‘hate speech’ provisions – meaning the content of the speech is selected for repression. As noted in 10 & 11, this reasoning is the linchpin of the more repressive regimes in living memory — those in power (majority/dominant, etc.) get to choose what you can say, by punishing those who deviate. I acknowledge that that means I have to tolerate more than I want, but I would rather err on that side, than on suppression of speech that the powers that be don’t like.
glukianoff - December 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for all the thoughtful discussion of our report. I anticipated many questions about the report and address them in my latest blog for the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/good-and-the-bad-news-abo_b_385511.htmlAs for our position on the distinction between public and private schools we actually address that within the report itself. http://www.thefire.org/public/pdfs/9aed4643c95e93299724a350234a29d6.pdfRegards,Greg LukianoffPresidentFIRE
mssmiley - December 10, 2009 at 11:44 am
Good question wmartin46; Why would any college or university want to voilate student free speech regardless of whether it was receiving plubic funds? “Student do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoohouse gate”(Tinker v.Demoines) Any institution with integrity and respect for diversity of ideas should encourage a robust discussion and entertain student free expression, as long as it does not pose a substantial or material harm to the school students.
mssmiley - December 10, 2009 at 11:50 am
I meant does not pose harm to the school or students.
swish - December 14, 2009 at 10:05 am
Why? First, fear of lawsuits. Some student takes offense or feels harassed and the university gets sued for permitting a “hostile” environment. Win or lose, defending or settling a lawsuit can be expensive. Better to enforce a code of speech — and give training sessions to students and staff — to try to stop such conflicts before they occur.Second, the university’s own reputation. For PR purposes, most universities want to appear tolerant, reasonable and competent; faculty, students or groups of students may threaten that appearance. Criticism of the university may expose its flaws (or worse). Faculty with certain views or areas of research(whether it be on global warming or, say, adult-child sex) can outrage the community. Students or student groups can be politically-incorrect. Press coverage of all this can make the university look bad. If the university defends the speech, they risk losing losing major donations.Look at parents and children. A child that goes around pointing out the physical flaws of visitors or using naughty words reflects badly on the parents, and can even get them in trouble. This is considered misbehavior, and parents will naturally try to stop it. It’s very hard to resist that immediate reaction. Free speech is a messy affair.