tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/free-speech-on-campus-33087/articlesFree speech on campus – The Conversation2023-12-18T14:17:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2199262023-12-18T14:17:03Z2023-12-18T14:17:03ZIsrael-Gaza war is having a chilling effect on academic freedom – podcast<p>Across parts of academia, concerns are mounting that the Israel-Gaza war is having a chilling effect on academic freedom. In the second of two episodes of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/the-conversation-weekly-98901">The Conversation Weekly</a> exploring how the war is affecting life at universities, we speak to an Israeli legal scholar, now based in the UK, about the pressures that academics and students are facing to rein in their views about the war. </p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/65804f3a3c61a300185b8044" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p></p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-561" class="tc-infographic" height="100" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/561/4fbbd099d631750693d02bac632430b71b37cd5f/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In the two months since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent Israeli war on Gaza, Neve Gordon is worried that there’s been a major clampdown on academic freedom in the US, Europe and Israel. </p>
<p>After teaching for 17 years in southern Israel, Gordon moved to the UK in 2016 and he’s now a professor of human rights and humanitarian law at Queen Mary University of London. His research looks at the laws of war with a special focus on Israel-Palestine, and on <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2023.2281436">definitions of antisemitism</a>. </p>
<p>He’s also the vice-president at the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies and chair of its committee on academic freedom. In this role, he’s been following the impact of the conflict on free speech at universities, and recently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYebFePm9sU">hosted an international webinar on the issue</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the UK we’ve seen suspension of students and staff from their universities. We’ve seen cancelling of events … of student activities like protests and sit-ins. We’ve seen a few cases of students that were arrested. We’ve seen students whose visas are threatened to be revoked. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Israel, Gordon told us he was aware of 113 cases in Israel of students and staff who have been suspended or dismissed, and at least ten students who have been arrested for their criticism of Israel’s attack on Gaza. “We have several students sitting behind bars for Facebook or tweets that basically express empathy for the suffering of the Palestinians,” he says. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/american-universities-in-the-spotlight-over-reaction-to-israel-gaza-war-podcast-219769">American universities in the spotlight over reaction to Israel-Gaza war – podcast</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile, in Germany, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/world/europe/germany-pro-palestinian-protests.html">many protests supporting Palestinian rights</a> have been banned and Gordon says colleagues in Germany have told him that “the situation is untenable”. </p>
<p>All this, Gordon says, is having a chilling effect across academia. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m getting phone calls from friends in different universities in different countries saying that they want to cancel their Israel-Palestine course for next semester because they’re afraid that things that they will say in class can be interpreted by students as antisemitic. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Listen to the full interview with Neve Gordon on <a href="https://podfollow.com/the-conversation-weekly/view">The Conversation Weekly</a> podcast, where you can also listen to the first of our two episodes on the way the Israel-Gaza war is affecting life at universities, focusing on what’s been happening at one <a href="https://theconversation.com/american-universities-in-the-spotlight-over-reaction-to-israel-gaza-war-podcast-219769">American public university</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/3002/The_Conversation_Weekly_Israel-Gaza_war_on_campus_part_2_transcript.pdf?1704802585">transcript of this episode</a> is now available. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware and Mend Mariwany, with assistance from Katie Flood. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.</em></p>
<p><em>You can find us on X, formerly known as Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TC_Audio">@TC_Audio</a>, on Instagram at <a href="https://www.instagram.com/theconversationdotcom/">theconversationdotcom</a> or <a href="mailto:podcast@theconversation.com">via email</a>. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter">free daily email here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our <a href="https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/60087127b9687759d637bade">RSS feed</a> or find out <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-listen-to-the-conversations-podcasts-154131">how else to listen here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219926/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neve Gordon is vice president of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies and the chair of its Committee on Academic Freedom. The Conversation UK receives support from UKRI. </span></em></p>The second of two episodes of The Conversation Weekly podcast exploring how the Israel-Gaza conflict is affecting life at universities.Gemma Ware, Editor and Co-Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2197692023-12-14T10:44:07Z2023-12-14T10:44:07ZAmerican universities in the spotlight over reaction to Israel-Gaza war – podcast<p>Tensions have been running high at many universities around the world since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. In the US, protests and solidarity events have been met with varied responses from university administrations. Some institutions are now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/nyregion/universities-antisemitic-anti-muslim-investigation.html">facing federal investigation</a> over incidents of alleged antisemitism and Islamophobia. </p>
<p>There’s been political fallout too: in early December, the president of the University of Pennsylvania <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/us/university-of-pennsylvania-president-resigns.html">stood down</a> after coming under pressure following her answers to a hearing in Congress about antisemitism on campus. </p>
<p>In the first of two episodes exploring how the war is affecting life at universities, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/the-conversation-weekly-98901">The Conversation Weekly</a> podcast hears about what’s been happening at one American public college campus. </p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/6579e3ef983e2b001673ff15" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p></p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-561" class="tc-infographic" height="100" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/561/4fbbd099d631750693d02bac632430b71b37cd5f/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>David Mednicoff says his department at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, tends to have the students who are “the most directly involved in issues around the Middle East, from different perspectives.” Mednicoff is chair of the university’s Department of Judaic and Near Eastern Studies and an associate professor of Middle Eastern studies and public policy.</p>
<p>Speaking to <em>The Conversation Weekly</em> podcast about the reaction on campus to the Israel-Gaza war, he said he’s been working to find ways of bridging divides, including putting on events designed to provide background to the conflict. Mednicoff believes that students should be able to listen to perspectives that can challenge them, “sometimes even to the core of their identity”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is reasonable for a Palestinian Arab to hear an Israeli-Jewish student share their sadness and fear in light of the October 7 massacres. It is reasonable for a pro-Israeli activist to appreciate that there’s a long history and even more important recent history of demeaning of Palestinian rights, particularly in the occupied territories.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mednicoff says the campus branch of Students for Justice for Palestine has been “louder than pro-Israel folks in terms of campus political discourse”. Pro-Palestinian protests, including a sit-in at a university administrative building <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/10/27/umass-amherst-protests-arrests">where 57 people were arrested</a>, have called for a ceasefire in Gaza. In a separate incident, a student was <a href="https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/11/05/umass-amherst-student-arrested-after-allegedly-punching-jewish-student-spitting-on-israeli-flag-the-disturbing-reality-for-jewish-students-on-campus/">arrested and charged</a> after allegedly attacking a Jewish student on campus. </p>
<h2>Role of a university</h2>
<p>Universities have come under fire from those – both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian – who think their leadership should take a stronger stance during the Israel-Gaza conflict. But Mednicoff thinks it isn’t the role of a university to do that. “In general, I think that it is ill advised for universities to take political positions on global issues,” he said. And because of the current climate for higher education, particularly in the US, he thinks it’s also a political choice for universities to try and foster well-informed, open debate.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Universities, I think all over the world, but certainly in the United States are themselves under a good bit of attack, by outside groups who think that universities either should push a particular perspective or they shouldn’t be places where broad free speech is allowed if it goes against what they would conceive as particular guardrails.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can listen to the full interview with David Mednicoff on <a href="https://podfollow.com/the-conversation-weekly/view">The Conversation Weekly</a>, plus an interview with Naomi Schalit, senior editor for politics and democracy at The Conversation in the US. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/3001/The_Conversation_Weekly_Israel-Gaza_war_on_campus_part_1_transcript.pdf?1704802484">transcript of this episode</a> is now available. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware, and Mend Mariwany, with assistance from Katie Flood. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.</em></p>
<p><em>Newsclips in this episode from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1QQ0_Zzvs&ab_channel=NBCNews">N</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EXgqQkLiDg&ab_channel=NBCNews">B</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1QQ0_Zzvs">C</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiLJPkHFkYI">News</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upWD8RX6LPk&t=27s&ab_channel=CBSEveningNews">CBS News</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>You can find us on X, formerly known as Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TC_Audio">@TC_Audio</a>, on Instagram at <a href="https://www.instagram.com/theconversationdotcom/">theconversationdotcom</a> or <a href="mailto:podcast@theconversation.com">via email</a>. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter">free daily email here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our <a href="https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/60087127b9687759d637bade">RSS feed</a> or find out <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-listen-to-the-conversations-podcasts-154131">how else to listen here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219769/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Mednicoff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The first of two episodes of The Conversation Weekly podcast exploring how the Israel-Gaza war is affecting life at universities.Gemma Ware, Editor and Co-Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1638802021-07-08T20:09:49Z2021-07-08T20:09:49ZDon’t just blame the Libs for treating universities harshly. Labor’s 1980s policies ushered in government interference<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410252/original/file-20210708-25-1m788ix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Robert Menzies established a 'buffer body' between government and universities.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/melbourne-australia-may-25-2014-robert-194823248">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Universities struggle to understand why the government doesn’t love them. </p>
<p>Since COVID, universities have lost billions of dollars and shed over <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/17000-uni-jobs-lost-to-covid-19/">17,000 staff</a>. The government <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-australian-government-letting-universities-suffer-138514">excluded them from Jobseeker</a>, which threatened their viability for teaching and research. </p>
<p>Universities train everyone from primary teachers to corporate bankers. Until recently, universities were the country’s <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2008/jun/pdf/bu-0608-2.pdf">third largest exporter</a>. Their research underpins economic innovation and COVID recovery. </p>
<p>So why has the government been letting them suffer?</p>
<p>It may be as simple, journalist George Megalogenis argued in <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/">the most recent Quarterly Essay</a>, as a harsh dating maxim. The government is just not that into them.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1410450972158029826"}"></div></p>
<p>It was this problem that led the founders of Australia’s higher education sector to build institutions to protect the truthfulness of academic research, the rigour and openness of scholarly debate and the standards applied to learning and teaching. They were not perfect, but it is worth understanding them.</p>
<h2>Why does the government hate universities?</h2>
<p>Some, like <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au">Megalogenis, believe</a> the Morrison government identifies its job as being re-elected rather than governing. And so politicians see universities as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-australian-government-letting-universities-suffer-138514">ideological opponents</a> rather than manufacturers of ideas and educated workers. </p>
<p>Debates around <a href="https://world.edu/how-a-fake-free-speech-crisis-could-imperil-academic-freedom/">free speech and religious freedom</a> suggest Morrison may have little personal sympathy for the values associated with secular institutions committed to academic freedom. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-need-for-the-chicago-principles-in-australian-universities-to-protect-freedom-of-speech-107001">There's no need for the 'Chicago principles' in Australian universities to protect freedom of speech</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The free speech issue is based on claims some conservative ideas are being “cancelled” on campus. One of these was sex therapist Bettina Arndt’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/do-the-stats-back-up-the-narrative-of-a-rape-crisis-on-campus">lecture series</a>, which attracted student protests when she argued, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/01/sexual-assault-report-universities-called-on-to-act-on-damning-figures">contrary to reports</a>, that women are not in fact at risk of rape on campus. </p>
<p>After these protests, in November 2018, The <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/former-high-court-chief-robert-french-to-lead-inquiry-into-free-speech-on-campus-20181113-p50ft1.html">Morrison government asked</a> former High Court chief justice Robert French to lead an inquiry into free speech on university campuses.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1364790845426135045"}"></div></p>
<h2>Menzies protected unis from government</h2>
<p>It was Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies — who served his second term from 1949 to 1966 — who created a funding system for universities. In fact, his reforms shaped Australian higher education.</p>
<p>He insisted there should be some protection for universities from political interference.</p>
<p>In the middle of the Cold War, which began as the second world war came to a close, university independence was a key distinction between democracies and authoritarian countries. Cruel and unethical Nazi science and false and misleading Soviet research had revealed the risk of leaving university funding in the hands of politicians.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-australian-government-letting-universities-suffer-138514">Why is the Australian government letting universities suffer?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The inquiry <a href="https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A53782">Menzies commissioned</a> in 1957 wrote in its report that even at “inconvenient moments”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a good university is the best guarantee that […]somebody, whatever the circumstances, will continue to seek the truth and make it known.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The result was the Australian Universities Commission. This was a statutory body which made recommendations to the Commonwealth government for funding to individual institutions. It was known as a “buffer body”, intended to protect higher education from capricious politics.</p>
<p>Menzies saw <a href="https://aph.org.au/2017/11/university-autonomy-and-the-public-interest/">non-democratic universities</a> overseas were a disservice to their nation’s agricultural systems, cultural and literary traditions and political-economic agility. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L9NHrVlLzxE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It was not that Australian politicians in the 1950s were particularly averse to universities. But the risk of political interference was clear in the heightened global climate, and Menzies was determined to put in a structure to promote “democratic freedom”.</p>
<h2>The ALP dismantled the protections</h2>
<p>In the 1980s, Bob Hawke’s Labor government minister John Dawkins expanded higher education as the foundation for economic reform. This led to an overhaul of the underlying structure, and financial support that was established in the 1950s. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="John Gawkins" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410254/original/file-20210708-15-e6frie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hawke government minister John Dawkins dismantled the university buffer body.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dawkins#/media/File:John-Dawkins-1984.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Among these reforms was the dismantling of the buffer body. Bureaucratic leaders like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20050620020414/http://www.assa.edu.au/Directory/listall.asp?id=161">Peter Karmel</a> warned Dawkins at the time this was dangerous. </p>
<p>But Dawkins did not think it mattered, likely imagining other politicians, like him, would want a good university system.</p>
<h2>Universities have no buffer now</h2>
<p>The Dawkins reforms pushed universities to increased commercial behaviour. Academic leadership was replaced by corporate-style management. In time, university leaders earned <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australian-vice-chancellors-pay-came-to-average-1-million-and-why-its-a-problem-150829">CEO-level salaries</a> and bonuses. Although these were based on levels of productivity achieved by very low wages paid to casual academics, governments believed these salaries showed universities had money to spare.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australian-vice-chancellors-pay-came-to-average-1-million-and-why-its-a-problem-150829">How Australian vice-chancellors' pay came to average $1 million and why it's a problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such beliefs have allowed politicians to behave ungenerously towards universities. With no buffer body to stop them, politicians are free to take out petty grievances such as <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/shock-and-dismay-over-short-sighted-policy-that-will-double-the-cost-of-arts-degrees">increasing the cost of some humanities degrees</a>. They are also free to appease small interest groups, like adherents of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822?journalCode=csid20">far-right conspiracy theories</a> who believe cultural Marxists are destroying Western civilisation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1143059382185316352"}"></div></p>
<p>This risks the integrity of the higher education system Robert Menzies built. He wanted universities to be <a href="https://aph.org.au/2017/11/university-autonomy-and-the-public-interest/">democratic institutions</a>. </p>
<p>In the Cold War context, Australian universities were built to be relatively immune to the vagaries and vested interests of political leaders. They were not perfectly protected, as <a href="https://doi.org/10.5263/labourhistory.98.1.183">generations of left-wing scholars found</a>. Nevertheless, it was harder than it is today to impede higher education’s work towards the research and training we need.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Forsyth has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of her local Branch Committee of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Sherington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies insisted universities should have protection from political interference. But Bob Hawke’s education minister John Dawkins dismantled these protections.Hannah Forsyth, Senior Lecturer in History, Australian Catholic UniversityGeoffrey Sherington, Emeritus Professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1636472021-06-30T08:11:31Z2021-06-30T08:11:31ZAcademic freedom is paramount for universities. They can do more to protect it from China’s interference<p>A report from <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/30/they-dont-understand-fear-we-have/how-chinas-long-reach-repression-undermines">Human Rights Watch</a> released yesterday found students and academics critical of China’s Communist Party are being harassed and intimidated by supporters of Beijing. </p>
<p>Human Rights Watch interviewed 24 pro-democracy students from mainland China and Hong Kong, and 22 academics at Australian universities. In three verified cases, families of students in Australia who lived in China were visited or were requested to meet with police about the student’s activities in Australia. </p>
<p>The report also said Australian universities had failed to protect the academic freedom of students from China, and academics.</p>
<p>As a result, the report said students from China and academics researching China had been self-censoring “to avoid threats, harassment, and surveillance”. This frequent self-censorship threatened academic freedom.</p>
<p>Freedom of speech and academic freedom are paramount values for Australian universities. To protect these values, universities must do more to ensure the safety and well-being of students and employees.</p>
<h2>The majority can still speak freely</h2>
<p>While the report detailed concerning instances of intimidation and harassment, it also noted most Chinese students in Australia could express their views freely and engaged in healthy political debate. Intimidation is carried out by a small but highly motivated, vocal minority.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/78qcDIjRO8I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="https://go8.edu.au/media-statement-go8-universities-committed-to-providing-a-safe-secure-environment-for-students-and-staff">statement</a>, The Group of Eight — which comprises Australia’s biggest research universities including the universities of Melbourne and Sydney — said harassment and censorship were unacceptable. But it also added universities weren’t solely responsibility for foreign interference protection: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] the primary responsibility for monitoring the actions of foreign governments on Australian soil lies with the Australian Government and its agencies, not universities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Author of the Human Rights Watch report, Sophie McNeill, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] the majority of students who experienced harassment didn’t report it to their university. They believe their universities care more about maintaining relationships with the Chinese government and not alienating students supportive of China’s Communist Party.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Universities are struggling from a loss of foreign student revenue as a result of the pandemic. Before COVID-19, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents">about two in every five</a> international students enrolled in Australian higher education institutions were from mainland China. These students bring in <a href="https://www.austrade.gov.au/news/economic-analysis/chinese-education-exports-reach-10-billion">billions for universities</a>.</p>
<p>Still, universities can and should do a few things to protect their students and academics from foreign-power threats and intimidation.</p>
<h2>What universities can do</h2>
<p>The Australian government introduced the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/guidelines-counter-foreign-interference-australian-university-sector">University Foreign Interference Taskforce</a> in August 2019. This is a way for universities to engage with the government on foreign interference. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-boosts-scrutiny-over-chinese-targeting-of-university-sector-122484">Government boosts scrutiny over Chinese targeting of university sector</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Current taskforce <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/guidelines-counter-foreign-interference-australian-university-sector/resources/guidelines-counter-foreign-interference-australian-university-sector">guidelines</a> however, don’t seem to cover issues of foreign-power intimidation with regard to free debate. They are limited to addressing foreign interference in the university sector, through:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] efforts to alter or direct the research agenda; economic pressure; solicitation and recruitment of post-doctoral researchers and academic staff; and cyber intrusions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/universities-australia-condemns-all-forms-of-coercion-on-campus-and-in-the-classroom/">peak body representing Australia’s universities</a> has said the kind of coercion shown in the Human Rights Watch report will be addressed in a “refresh” of the guidelines, which are currently being worked on.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1410097265512005635"}"></div></p>
<p>Universities must not be afraid to punish students who harass others, or report back to the Chinese authorities. This should include expelling them from the university. This creates a safer environment for all students, including international students who are paying high foreign-student fees.</p>
<p>Universities could also encourage lecturers to hold classroom debate on sensitive topics while protecting students from surveillance. One strategy is anonymous online discussion, where students remain anonymous to other students but not to the lecturer. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pro-china-nationalists-are-using-intimidation-to-silence-critics-can-they-be-countered-without-stifling-free-speech-145241">Pro-China nationalists are using intimidation to silence critics. Can they be countered without stifling free speech?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other <a href="https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/how-teach-china-fall">strategies include</a> universities letting students know before enrolment about potential risks they may face if they talk freely about sensitive issues — particularly students learning remotely from China or Hong Kong — and actively preventing recordings of discussions. </p>
<p>Chinese students come to Australian universities in a big part to experience the culture and society. Part of this experience is democratic, healthy debate. Students should be encouraged to express their views, whether they support or oppose the Chinese government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yun Jiang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new report has found students and academics critical of China’s Communist Party are being harassed and intimidated by supporters of Beijing. Universities must do more to protect academic freedom.Yun Jiang, Managing Editor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1633252021-06-25T12:22:21Z2021-06-25T12:22:21ZFree-speech ruling won’t help declining civil discourse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408001/original/file-20210623-21-cfm3mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7360%2C4912&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Supreme Court ruling on free speech does nothing about toxic online discourse.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-woman-shouts-with-megaphone-royalty-free-image/1310062074">Francesco Carta fotografo/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A Supreme Court decision saying a school district could not punish a student for profane complaints made on a weekend and off school grounds will not stem the torrent of crude, disrespectful speech in American society.</p>
<p>In 2017, high school sophomore Brandi Levy tried out for and failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania. She made the junior varsity team instead. </p>
<p>The angry 14-year-old turned to social media to vent her frustration. She posted to Snapchat a photo of herself with a middle finger raised and a caption that read, “F— school, f— softball, f— cheer, f— everything.” </p>
<p>She posted the message online <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/supreme-court-mahanoy-brandi-levy-snapchat-cheerleader-oral-arguments-20210428.html">on a weekend, not during the cheerleading season</a>, while hanging out with a friend at a convenience store. A screenshot of the self-deleting message was shown to school officials, who suspended Levy from cheerleading for the next year.</p>
<p>Claiming their daughter’s First Amendment free-speech rights had been violated, Levy’s parents sued the school district. Hailed as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/supreme-court-free-speech-cheerleader.html">most significant case involving free-speech rights of students</a> to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 50 years, it ended with court ruling that <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">Levy’s First Amendment rights had been violated</a>, though justices also said there were other circumstances in which the school could punish students for things they say off-campus.</p>
<h2>Civic engagement or rhetorical weapon?</h2>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.law.msu.edu/faculty_staff/profile.php?prof=240">First Amendment expert</a>, I see this ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights. But as a citizen and teacher troubled by the demise of civil discourse in the U.S., I am aware that the court’s ruling does nothing about the growing problem of ill-mannered, even toxic speech – by students and adults. The problem runs much deeper than posting F-bombs online. </p>
<p>Many Americans use the First Amendment not as a tool of civic engagement but <a href="https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/weaponizing-first-amendment-equality-reading/">as a weapon to avoid consequences</a> for voicing hateful, repulsive or profane expression. At a time when most young Americans prefer to communicate by text or social media, rather than face-to-face interaction, civil discourse is withering.</p>
<p>But it is not the role of the Supreme Court to prescribe civility – or ban incivility. That’s up to us, and I believe it’s clear that Americans need to know more about the First Amendment, and practice in-person interaction, to properly understand how free speech can be a productive part of civil discourse.</p>
<p><iframe id="16Xqd" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/16Xqd/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><iframe id="dd7Lk" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dd7Lk/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Free speech is complex</h2>
<p>In a 2018 Knight Foundation survey of almost 10,000 high school students, <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/articles/seven-ways-high-school-student-views-on-free-speech-are-changing/">89% supported the right to express unpopular opinions</a>; however, only 45% believed people have the right to express speech that others considered offensive. A survey of college-age students <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/the-first-amendment-on-campus-2020-report-college-students-views-of-free-expression/">produced similar results</a>.</p>
<p>Some commentators have suggested these contradictory results show there is a philosophical conflict in <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/05/gallupknight-foundation-survey-shows-students-conflicted-about-free-speech">balancing free-speech protections</a> with a respect for diversity and inclusion. </p>
<p>But something else could be true: Young people – and Americans as a whole, of all ages – simply may not understand First Amendment free-speech rights. </p>
<p>The First Amendment protects a broad spectrum of speech, even speech that offends and makes people feel uncomfortable, because a <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/999/marketplace-of-ideas">thriving democracy depends on cultivating a vigorous marketplace of ideas</a>. Citizens should ponder and sift the merits and pitfalls of diverse ideas to make good public policy. </p>
<p>In a 2018 survey by the Freedom Forum Institute, a <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/">nonprofit advocacy group promoting the First Amendment</a>, 40% of adults interviewed <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/">could not name even one right</a> guaranteed by the First Amendment. By 2019, that number <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/">dropped to 29%</a>, but still that’s about 1 in 3 Americans who don’t know the first thing about the First Amendment. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A stone carved with the text of the First Amendment" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408004/original/file-20210623-21-bsfl99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A stone monument to the First Amendment, outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution.jpg">Zakarie Faibis via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>First Amendment lessons</h2>
<p>As knowledge about the First Amendment has waned, so has training in this fundamental constitutional right. </p>
<p>In 2006, <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/survey-high-school-students-teachers-differ-on-the-first-amendment">72% of high school students</a> surveyed by the Knight Foundation reported having taken a class that studied the First Amendment. But 12 years later, in 2018, that percentage had dropped to 64%.</p>
<p>Coupled with a decline in young people’s knowledge about free-speech rights comes a decline in their interest in face-to-face verbal communication. </p>
<p>In 2012, <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-2018">49% of teenagers preferred talking in person</a>, with 42% preferring texting or other tech-driven communication. And 34% were on social media multiple times a day. By 2018, though, <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-2018">61% of teenagers</a> surveyed preferred texting or using social media to talking in person. And 70% were on social media more than once a day, with 16% saying they use social media “almost constantly.”</p>
<p>I expect that after a year of pandemic-related separation and isolation, even more teens will feel more comfortable with digital communication and less interested in in-person conversations. The result? Teenagers who mature into adults are less interested in, and less adept at, the primary form of communication for the human species – talking face to face.</p>
<h2>In-person interaction is key</h2>
<p>The seemingly random, aimless conversations teens can have while strolling through a shopping center, while gaming together or over a burger actually serve an extremely important role. It is in the <a href="https://tametheteen.com/are-your-teens-communication-problems-due-to-social-media/">real-time conversational experience</a> that people learn whether something they say is well received or offensive.</p>
<p>When speaking in person, they can read a friend’s facial expression, body language and emotions and think to themselves, “Uh-oh, maybe I shouldn’t have said that, or said it differently. Instead, I should have said ….” </p>
<p>As young people mature, most learn through this process to say things less bluntly, less dismissively and with more mutual respect. Face-to-face conversation cultivates reflection and, with practice, <a href="https://tametheteen.com/are-your-teens-communication-problems-due-to-social-media/">the art of civil discourse</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three people sit at a table and talk" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408005/original/file-20210623-19-ssu6ua.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spending time together in person helps everyone learn to moderate their self-expression and improves mutual understanding, even through disagreements.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/sharing-a-laugh-with-my-friends-royalty-free-image/627987496">ferrantraite/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Fostering real exchange</h2>
<p>But when 70% of teenagers are primarily engaging with other people and the world online, it is easy for them to impulsively send words and images into the ether, never knowing how <a href="https://tametheteen.com/are-your-teens-communication-problems-due-to-social-media/">bluntly or cruelly their messages strike</a> others.</p>
<p>Social media is a good place for personal boasting and passing judgment, but it makes us <a href="https://tametheteen.com/are-your-teens-communication-problems-due-to-social-media/">worse at listening and doesn’t help develop humility</a>, both key elements of productive civil discourse.</p>
<p>Is it any wonder, then, when a teenager confronts an idea she doesn’t like the response is not “It’s interesting you feel that way, please explain” but rather, “You suck!” – end of story. Online there is not a person right in front of her with hurt feelings, providing the social – not legal – consequences of intemperate or even offensive speech.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand what’s going on in Washington.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-most">Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly</a>.]</p>
<p>In my own law school classroom, I have tried not only to teach students about free-speech principles but to give them opportunities to engage in respectful, face-to-face speech, even when they disagree. I paired a pro-Trump law student with a first-generation Middle Easterner to teach First Amendment workshops at a rural Michigan school. </p>
<p>The students didn’t change their political views, but the pro-Trump student learned about the fears of immigrants who faced threats of deportation by the Trump administration, despite their decades of hard work and contributions in America. The Middle Easterner put aside her bias and learned to work as a team to provide free-speech training to dozens of high school teenagers.</p>
<p>Similar student encounters are possible across schools’ and colleges’ curricula because free expression is involved in a myriad of subjects – English, art, psychology, theater and other disciplines.</p>
<p>Fostering diversity of thought in a culture that welcomes a robust exchange of ideas takes skill and practice, for young and old alike. No decree by the Supreme Court can do that for us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy Costello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Supreme Court ruling about a student’s free-speech rights won’t stem the torrent of crude, disrespectful speech in American society.Nancy Costello, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1633472021-06-24T13:22:56Z2021-06-24T13:22:56ZSchools must act carefully on students’ off-campus speech, Supreme Court rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408032/original/file-20210623-19-1g37fzx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C26%2C5982%2C3961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Supreme Court ruled that a school could not punish a student for a profane Snapchat post made off campus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/smart-phone-in-chain-with-lock-on-orange-background-royalty-free-image/1299325496?adppopup=true">Eshma/iStock / Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, U.S. courts have ruled that public school students “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21?sort=ideology#!">do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate</a>,” as the Supreme Court said in 1968. </p>
<p>In that case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the justices held that high school students who were suspended for protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school were protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. </p>
<p>The standard the court set then, which has been narrowed and focused over the years, was that schools could only punish students for speech that “materially and substantially” disrupted the educational mission of the school. In several subsequent cases, about a <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/">student campaign speech full of sexual innuendo</a>, a <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/260/">school newspaper article on teen pregnancy</a> and a student-created sign saying “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/393/">Bong Hits for Jesus</a>”, the Supreme Court evaluated speech or expression that took place on campus or at a school-sponsored event. And in every case, the justices deferred to school authorities on their judgment of what disrupted their educational mission.</p>
<p>A case the court took up this year provided an opportunity for a wider view, specifically about what protections students might have for <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">speech they engage in off-campus and away from school events</a>, including online. </p>
<p>School districts and officials were <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-255/156538/20201001154014503_20-255%20Amici%20Brief%20Pennsylvania%20School%20Boards%20Assoc%20Final.pdf">anxious for guidance</a> about the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-255/156535/20201001153720293_2020.10.01%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf">extent to which they can police social media speech</a> by their students, especially with heightened concern about cyberbullying and threats of school shootings.</p>
<p>Free speech advocates were worried about the extent to which <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-255/173545/20210331150644127_20-255%20Brief%20for%20Amici%20Curiae.pdf">schools can extend their reach and control over students</a> outside of school grounds and hours, especially given the amount of time teens spend on social media.</p>
<p>The June 23, 2021, decision in that case, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">Mahanoy v. B.L.</a>, is both a win and a loss for both sides. The 8-1 ruling, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, did not give either side <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/supreme-court-free-speech-brandi-levy.html">the clear rules they may have wanted</a>. </p>
<p>It says schools are not forbidden from disciplining students in cases of severe harassment and cyberbullying that happen outside school. But it does warn schools that their attempts to regulate off-campus speech will be treated with less deference than they would get when addressing events on campus.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An elderly man with wire-rimmed glasses in a Supreme Court black robe." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408033/original/file-20210623-21-2n8okv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion in the case, saying a ‘school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention’ in student speech made off campus or outside school programs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/SupremeCourt/cd23bb861a204cdfb135c05478300022/photo?Query=Justice%20AND%20Breyer&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=419&currentItemNo=5">Pool/Associated Press</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A quick synopsis</h2>
<p>The case centered on Brandi Levy, who was a high school sophomore in 2017 when she failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at Mahanoy Area High School. She did make the junior varsity team, but expressed her disappointment at not making the top squad through a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-first-amendment/2021/04/25/9d2ac1e2-9eb7-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html">crude Snapchat post</a> involving raised middle fingers and multiple uses of the F-word.</p>
<p>She made the post over the weekend, from a location outside the school campus. Several members of the cheerleading squad saw the post and reported it to officials, who suspended her from cheerleading for violating team-conduct rules. Levy’s parents sued on her behalf, arguing under the First Amendment that the team rules were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/supreme-court-free-speech.html">overbroad and unconstitutionally vague</a>, and that the school had no authority over her off campus speech.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15693695857098220398&q=Mahanoy+Area+Sch.+Dist.&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&as_vis=1">federal district court that first heard the case</a> concluded that Levy’s post did not create the sort of substantial disruption to education that the Tinker ruling’s standard demanded. The <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/19-1842/19-1842-2020-06-30.html">Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit</a> held that Levy’s speech happened off campus and outside a school-sponsored event, so Tinker’s standard didn’t apply.</p>
<p>The school district appealed to the Supreme Court, noting that the appeals court ruling conflicted with other rulings around the country that had applied the Tinker precedent to off-campus speech.</p>
<h2>The justices’ review</h2>
<p>The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts that the school had violated Levy’s First Amendment rights. But it disagreed with the appeals court’s reasoning that the Tinker case would not apply to off-campus speech.</p>
<p>In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the court “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">did not believe the special characteristics</a> that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus.” At minimum, the ruling explains, schools must have the authority to regulate bullying, harassment, threats directed at staff or students, online learning and assignments and cybersecurity for school systems.</p>
<p>But the court also expressed reluctance to let schools very broadly regulate students’ off-campus speech, fearing the effect could be severe limits on student speech any time of day or night, in any location. </p>
<p>Instead, the justices said courts should be “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">more skeptical</a>” of schools’ attempts to regulate off-campus speech than when handling on-campus expression. </p>
<p>The ruling also reminded schools of their obligation to protect the expression of unpopular opinion. Schools are “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">the nurseries of democracy</a>,” Breyer wrote, and have an obligation to teach their students about the importance of free speech.</p>
<p>As a result of this reasoning, the court found that Levy’s Snapchat post was protected under the First Amendment. It was not substantially disruptive to the school environment, wasn’t targeted at anyone in particular, was not obscene, and did not constitute “fighting words” or incitement to violence.</p>
<p>Breyer did observe that Levy’s word choice was vulgar and perhaps juvenile in tone, but said “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255">sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary</a>.”</p>
<p>As a result of the ruling, students don’t lose their rights when they enter through the schoolhouse gate – but neither do school officials lose all of their disciplinary power once students leave.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand what’s going on in Washington.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-most">Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katy Harriger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Mahanoy v. B.L. ruling did not give schools or free-speech advocates the clear lines they may have wanted, but it did attempt to address some of the complexity of modern-day speech.Katy Harriger, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570132021-03-30T14:03:56Z2021-03-30T14:03:56ZFree speech on campus: universities need to create ‘safe but critical’ spaces for debate – here’s how they can do it<p>The issue of free speech in universities continues to plague UK campuses. Earlier this year, the government announced “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-proposals-to-strengthen-free-speech-at-universities">landmark proposals</a>” to tackle the issue, including appointing a “free speech tsar” and giving the Office for Students powers to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-proposals-to-strengthen-free-speech-at-universities">sanction institutions</a> deemed to be doing too little to promote free speech and academic freedom.</p>
<p>But hot-button issues from perceived <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/06/university-forced-apologise-compensate-phd-student-transphobic/">transphobia</a> to <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/25/british-law-professor-under-fire-over-islamophobic-content">Islamophobia</a> continue to plague university campuses and it’s not clear the government’s plans will do much to help.</p>
<p>Some of the proposals <a href="https://wonkhe.com/blogs/free-speech-proposals-are-a-breakdown-of-trust-and-confidence/">replicate</a> existing legal requirements on universities. Others, like the proposal to extend free speech requirements to student unions, would have a much bigger impact because it would prevent unions from denying platforms to people with lawful views that they don’t like.</p>
<p>But perhaps the biggest consequence of these plans is how they’ll affect the sector’s reputation. Far from restoring confidence in universities, it’s likely this intervention will just inflame longstanding moral outrage about universities failing to be bastions of liberal democracy. As <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/freedom-speech-universities-alison-scott-baumann-simon-perfect/10.4324/9780429289835">we argue</a> in our new book, Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, Charities and Counter-terrorism, there’s a popular binary narrative that accuses universities and students either of unfairly restricting legitimate free speech, or of giving too much freedom to extremists (particularly Muslim ones). </p>
<h2>The so-called free speech crisis</h2>
<p>Indeed, according to a <a href="https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/articles/research/YouGov-Theos---Universities-free-speech-2019.xlsx">2019 poll by Theos</a>, the religion and society think tank, 52% of adults think that free speech is under threat in universities, and 29% think that “Islamic extremism” is common on campus. Neither assumption is accurate. According to the <a href="https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/860e26e2-63e7-47eb-84e0-49100788009c/ofs2019_22.pdf">Office for Students</a>, in 2017-18 only a tiny number of referrals (15) were made by English universities to Prevent, the deradicalisation programme. In the same year, out of 62,094 requests for external speakers, only 53 were rejected. High-profile incidents of student no-platforming do not reflect the huge number of speaker events which go ahead every year unimpeded.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1361661217065033730"}"></div></p>
<p>Though free speech isn’t in a major crisis on campus, that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues that should be taken seriously. Survey evidence <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-universities.pdf">suggests that</a> a significant minority of right-leaning students feel unable to express their views as freely as they would like on campus. As our research shows, there are structural factors which push universities and student unions towards being cautious. </p>
<p>One of those issues is the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf">Prevent Duty</a>, the requirement on universities to identify people at risk of radicalisation into terrorism and to report them to the authorities. Prevent relies on ordinary, untrained people to spot radicalisation. This means that many, particularly those with socially conservative views, are at risk of being wrongly labelled extremists. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/islam-on-campus-9780198846789?cc=us&lang=en&">major project</a>, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, looks at free speech in relation to Islam and the experiences of Muslims on campus. Led by Alison Scott-Baumann in 2015-18, over half of the 253 students and staff (Muslim and non-Muslim) who were interviewed commented negatively about Prevent or described it as chilling free speech. Some said they needed to self-censor in order to avoid arousing false suspicion of extremism.</p>
<p>Charity law (which affects student unions because they’re considered charities) can also inhibit speech on campus. As student unions have been regulated by the Charity Commission since 2010, the law requires unions to ensure their activities don’t risk damaging their reputations. Charity Commission <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protecting-charities-from-abuse-for-extremist-purposes/chapter-5-protecting-charities-from-abuse-for-extremist-purposes">guidance</a> also requires charities, including unions, to be cautious about or even avoid hosting views that, though controversial, “might fall well below the criminal threshold”. </p>
<p>Our interviews with student union managers in 2016-17 found that some have felt forced to be wary, turning down requests for potentially controversial (though lawful) speakers in fear of breaching charity law. One manager described these charity law requirements as “clipping our wings” on free speech and making him “risk-averse” regarding speakers: “I say ‘no’ more than ‘yes’ these days, it’s disappointing.”</p>
<p>We also found that, while the Charity Commission is generally a light-touch regulator, when it has intervened it has pushed some student unions to avoid controversial speakers. The government’s proposal to make student unions subject to the free speech legal requirement fails to address the fact that charity law would continue to push them in the opposite direction.</p>
<h2>How to fix the problem</h2>
<p>University managers need to respond to these structural issues. In terms of Prevent specifically, there should be transparent, regular dialogue with Muslim students and staff to help address any concerns about the programme. Managers should also encourage student unions to be bold and host controversial speakers if they’re requested, rather than being unnecessarily cautious.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Person with blue tape over their mouths holds finger to lips" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Universities’ reputations hinge on pushing back against damaging narratives about free speech.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/censored-woman-blue-tape-on-mouth-3366712">Stefan Redel/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But beyond this, universities should be far more proactive in creating opportunities for students in all disciplines to engage in rigorous debate about relevant controversial issues. Our book explains how lecturers can create a “community of inquiry” in the classroom – a space for frank debate, where participants agree ground rules at the outset and thus take ownership of the debating process.</p>
<p>Finally, universities need to push back against the damaging narratives that undermine their reputation. This in part means better explaining how they’re handling free speech and difficult debate. Rather than the simplistic choice between more or less free speech, we argue there are in fact four options: </p>
<ul>
<li>libertarian (where there are no constraints at all on language or content as long as both are lawful);</li>
<li>liberal (where free speech on any topic is upheld as far as lawfully possible, but the most offensive language is avoided);</li>
<li>guarded liberal (where some restrictions may be in place); and,</li>
<li>no-platforming (where particular ideas or speakers are denied a platform).</li>
</ul>
<p>Universities should take the liberal approach by default, although it might occasionally be reasonable to use different approaches for particularly controversial topics. Either way, by using this model flexibly and transparently in conversations with event organisers, universities can explain which approach they have used and why. </p>
<p>Only through university-led reforms like these can we address the issues chilling speech on campus. The government’s sanctions-heavy approach will achieve little apart from fostering more needless outrage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Scott-Baumann has received funding from AHRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Perfect is a Researcher at Theos, the religion and society think tank.</span></em></p>Far from restoring confidence in these institutions, it’s likely interventions will just inflame moral outrageAlison Scott-Baumann, Professor of Society & Belief, SOAS, University of LondonSimon Perfect, Tutor, SOAS, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1562132021-03-10T19:06:49Z2021-03-10T19:06:49ZBook review: Open Minds explores how academic freedom and the public university are at risk<p>Academic freedom has become a common topic of Australian public debate. Yet the concept is rarely examined or critiqued in detail. </p>
<p>That has not stopped it becoming a totemic issue for many on the political right. They consider Australian universities to be increasingly prone to doctrinaire and censorious attitudes. In particular, they point to issues of identity politics, climate change and other so-called “progressive” causes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/university-free-speech-bill-a-sop-to-pauline-hanson-and-other-critics-but-what-difference-will-it-make-150449">University free speech bill a sop to Pauline Hanson and other critics, but what difference will it make?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Prominent cases include the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/peter-ridd-donations-sacking-james-cook-university-high-court/12506230">2018 sacking</a> of geophysicist Peter Ridd by James Cook University and <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/riot-squad-called-to-sydney-university-over-protests-to-sex-therapist-bettina-arndt/news-story/0698b147e38b44f2b13fc3766664385c">protests</a> against Bettina Arndt’s visit to the University of Sydney to give a controversial speech on date rape that same year. The federal Coalition government responded by <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/independent-review-freedom-speech-australian-higher-education-providers">commissioning</a> the Independent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers by former chief justice Robert French. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cover of Open Minds book" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388694/original/file-20210310-13-eiobxe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/open-minds">Black Inc.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/open-minds">Open Minds: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech of Australia</a>, by constitutional law experts <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/authors/carolyn-evans">Carolyn Evans</a> and <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/authors/adrienne-stone">Adrienne Stone</a>, is the first book-length examination of the French Review and the idea of academic freedom that lies behind it. The authors are especially well qualified to comment on both the context and specific recommendations of the review. </p>
<h2>What is academic freedom?</h2>
<p>Among many helpful insights, Evans and Stone point out that academic freedom is not the same thing as freedom of speech. The latter is already at least partially protected by various specific and implied rights to freedom of speech in law. </p>
<p>The exercise of academic freedom, however, <a href="https://theconversation.com/feel-free-to-disagree-on-campus-by-learning-to-do-it-well-151019">as Geoff Sharrock has noted in The Conversation</a>, invokes a particular kind of social relationship. It is both public-facing and aims to be an expression of a public good.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/feel-free-to-disagree-on-campus-by-learning-to-do-it-well-151019">Feel free to disagree on campus ... by learning to do it well</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Academic discourse seeks to be both well-reasoned and true. An <em>academic</em> opinion is thus different to an academic merely expressing their personal views. </p>
<p>For instance, climate scientists do not need to “believe” in climate change. Instead they must justify any assertion they make based on rigorous standards of scientific evidence and proof. </p>
<p>Thus, as Evans and Stone note, universities do not provide academic staff with an untrammelled right to say what they like on any issue. Theirs is a more narrowly conceived right based on an underlying <em>obligation</em> to justify their public utterances through the application of disciplinary expertise and values.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oRGmv8cmtxE?wmode=transparent&start=428" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Adrienne Stone, one of the authors of Open Minds, discusses the distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The most contentious debates about academic freedom in Australia have not been about such academic concepts, however. Instead they have been more interested in trying to out a perceived underlying left-wing bias. This shows <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-fake-free-speech-crisis-could-imperil-academic-freedom-144272">how skewed the understanding of academic freedom</a> has become in Australia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-fake-free-speech-crisis-could-imperil-academic-freedom-144272">How a fake 'free speech crisis' could imperil academic freedom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The French Review found no substantial evidence of any organised attempt to limit the capacity of students to encounter alternative political ideas. Evans and Stone <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Open_Minds/IF3UDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22today%E2%80%99s+students+are+less+radical+and+politicised+than+their+predecessors%22&pg=PT45&printsec=frontcover">note</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If anything, today’s students are less radical and politicised than their predecessors.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JOOGmNVN0Rk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The federal government followed up the French Review by commissioning Sally Walker to report on universities’ adoption of a code of free speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the real threats?</h2>
<p>Glyn Davis’s foreword draws attention to concerns he also expressed in a recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">Conversation article</a>. He says threats to academic freedom might arise from direct government intervention, or from the rise in tied grants from big business, or from philanthropic trusts directing teaching and research. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What has been much less self-evident, or at least less acknowledged, is the possibility that the very way Australian universities are now constituted and governed may pose an even more fundamental threat.</p>
<p>What, after all does “institutional autonomy” mean when universities are now so <a href="https://theconversation.com/governing-universities-tertiary-experience-no-longer-required-145439">closely regulated and controlled by their senior managers and councils</a>, and by the market forces they have unleashed to help fund their operations?</p>
<p>Early on, Evans and Stone <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Open_Minds/IF3UDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22today%E2%80%99s+students+are+less+radical+and+politicised+than+their+predecessors%22&pg=PT45&printsec=frontcover">assert</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Universities] are not commercial institutions, nor are they instruments of government. They are special communities dedicated to teaching and research. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But towards the end of their book, they implicitly <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Open_Minds/IF3UDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22today%E2%80%99s+students+are+less+radical+and+politicised+than+their+predecessors%22&pg=PT45&printsec=frontcover">suggest</a> things might not be so rosy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Academics should not be required to support the university’s brand or to avoid embarrassing it if doing so comes at the expense of academic freedom. On the contrary, academics should be able to speak out about research, teaching and university governance even when doing so involves harsh and even disrespectful criticism.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/governing-universities-tertiary-experience-no-longer-required-145439">Governing universities: tertiary experience no longer required</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is easy for academics to conclude that <a href="https://theconversation.com/unis-are-run-like-corporations-but-their-leaders-are-less-accountable-heres-an-easy-way-to-fix-that-147194">essentially unaccountable</a> senior university administrators, not disciplinary professors or other disciplinary experts, have become the ultimate determiners of a particular discipline’s educational and research priorities, and thus of the true limits of academic freedom in its broadest sense.</p>
<p>As Ron Srigley has <a href="https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/whose-university-is-it-anyway/">noted</a> of US campuses:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ask about virtually any problem in the university today and the solution proposed will inevitably be administrative. Why? Because we think administrators, not professors, guarantee the quality of the product and the achievement of institutional goals. But how is that possible in an academic environment in which knowledge and understanding are the true goals? Without putting too fine a point on it, it’s because they aren’t the true goals any longer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In such a context, even an everyday event like the Australian National University’s <a href="https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/anu-to-tell-all-with-visual-refinement-and-story-telling-framework/">recent announcement of a brand relaunch</a> can start to seem much less benign. The university itself describes it as part of a “journey to foster cohesion, reduce the issue of brand fragmentation and use research to address the cognitive dissonance between how we see ourselves versus how our community and the world sees us”. </p>
<p>Brand managers, like most senior university managers, are generally not practising academics. Thus, they should not be expected to understand, let alone articulate or defend, academic freedom.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/unis-are-run-like-corporations-but-their-leaders-are-less-accountable-heres-an-easy-way-to-fix-that-147194">Unis are run like corporations but their leaders are less accountable. Here's an easy way to fix that</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One of the many ways <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/open-minds">Open Minds</a> may prove to be of lasting value is in helping academics question the propriety of such managerial pronouncements, by framing them properly as issues of academic freedom. </p>
<p>This is why academic freedom is a central concern for <a href="https://publicuniversities.org/about/">Academics for Public Universities</a>. We would argue this issue ultimately requires us to reexamine and revitalise the underlying public character of our universities. </p>
<p>That, too, is something we now need to defend.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156213/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Tregear is a founding member of Academics for Public Universities <a href="https://publicuniversities.org/">https://publicuniversities.org/</a></span></em></p>The issues dominating public debates about academic freedom are not where the greatest threats lie.Peter Tregear, Principal Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1510192020-12-10T18:58:47Z2020-12-10T18:58:47ZFeel free to disagree on campus … by learning to do it well<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/373807/original/file-20201209-17-cwcok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C421%2C8808%2C5854&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/businessmen-screaming-into-megaphone-each-other-1045301524">pathdoc/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/uncategorised/resources/report-independent-review-freedom-speech-australian-higher-education-providers-march-2019">French Review</a> didn’t confirm a “<a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/as-unis-stifle-free-speech-we-need-a-law-to-stop-the-rot">free speech crisis</a>” in Australian universities. But nor did its report last year confirm free speech was “<a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/freedom-of-expression-alive-and-well-on-australian-uni-campuses/">alive and well</a>”, as Universities Australia would have it. In many university policies the report found vague language, which could rule out voicing a view deemed offensive.</p>
<p>Most universities have updated their policies in response to the French Review’s Model Code on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, and related <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-free-speech-bill-a-sop-to-pauline-hanson-and-other-critics-but-what-difference-will-it-make-150449">amendments to higher education legislation</a> are before the parliament. On Wednesday, the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-reviews-and-consultations/resources/report-independent-review-adoption-model-code-freedom-speech-and-academic-freedom">Walker Review</a> of universities’ implementation of the code <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/only-nine-of-australia-s-42-universities-have-adopted-the-free-speech-code-20201208-p56lrk.html">reported</a> that many don’t fully reflect the code yet. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/university-free-speech-bill-a-sop-to-pauline-hanson-and-other-critics-but-what-difference-will-it-make-150449">University free speech bill a sop to Pauline Hanson and other critics, but what difference will it make?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However they fare on this, many will also recall the French Review’s observation: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A culture powerfully predisposed to the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom is ultimately a more effective protection than the most tightly drawn rule. A culture not so predisposed will undermine the most emphatic statement of principles.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, universities promote respect for others’ rights, and civility more generally. They have a duty to foster the well-being of students and staff. But in the model code this doesn’t “extend to a duty to protect any person from feeling offended or shocked or insulted by the lawful speech of another”. </p>
<p>Like the <a href="https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf">Chicago Principles</a>, the model code reflects legal limits on free expression, but doesn’t seek to enforce civility as a formal campus rule. It recognises universities as institutions where disagreement runs deep and where diverse views — even those some find offensive — should be exchanged freely and challenged openly. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/four-fundamental-principles-for-upholding-freedom-of-speech-on-campus-104690">Four fundamental principles for upholding freedom of speech on campus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, apart from clarifying policy, how can universities promote a “free to disagree” culture on campus? Not just in name, but in norms? </p>
<h2>Learning how to disagree well</h2>
<p>One way may be to focus more on teaching students how to argue persuasively. On topics where positions are polarised, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"><em>ad hominem</em> attacks</a> are common. On the topic of climate change, for example, debates often slide into shouting matches between “deniers” and “zealots”. Or they may proceed mainly in the form of petty point-scoring, as in the recent US presidential debates.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-first-us-presidential-debate-was-pure-chaos-heres-what-our-experts-thought-147178">The first US presidential debate was pure chaos. Here's what our experts thought</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>To keep debates robust and constructive, it helps to recognise other diversionary tactics and defensive routines. My “Disagree Well On Campus” model (shown below — click to enlarge) calls on scholars to aim high.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371798/original/file-20201128-15-mku3wq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disagree Well On Campus model. For robust and open debate, aim high. Make your case at levels 1-2. Avoid (and recognise) level 3 tactics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This means they should contest an opponent’s claims with logic and evidence, a level 2 counter argument. If they can do this well enough, the case at hand — whether mainstream or minority — may be refuted (or reframed, or reaffirmed) to a scholarly standard, level 1. </p>
<p>But, as the list of level 3 “dogmatic avoidance” tactics suggests, there are many ways to differ without resolving anything. At the low end, personal accusations and name-calling aren’t arguments in a level 2 sense. Often they signal a refusal to debate the substance of <em>this</em> kind of topic with <em>that</em> kind of person. </p>
<p>Consider how your last big argument went. Was it level 1, 2 or 3?</p>
<h2>Level 3 tactics explained</h2>
<p>At level 3, the first two “appeal” tactics <em>enlist support</em> for a view by appealing to a higher authority or greater good. (But how far do we rely on one, or prioritise the other?)</p>
<p>The next four “misdirection” tactics <em>evade the point</em> of an opponent’s view. This is done mainly by raising other concerns. (But how relevant and significant are these to the main argument?)</p>
<p>The final three “exclusion” tactics <em>withdraw the commitment to engage</em> with an opponent’s viewpoint, or take it seriously, by casting doubt on their morality, sincerity or credibility. </p>
<p>At level 3, common avoidance tactics include “straw man” arguments (Misdirect 4). An opponent’s view is restated in a way that gives it unintended meanings. This caricature is then refuted, instead of the actual claim. </p>
<p>Another tactic is to cite a technical fact as a trump card, which seems to settle which side is right (Misdirect 2). But this may be a “red herring” that leads away from the point at issue (Misdirect 1). Or it may be an unreliable form of evidence. The phrase “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics">lies, damned lies and statistics</a>” refers to the use of carefully selected factoids to prop up or put down a case. Often this amounts to spin by omission, not the level of proof that independent experts would accept. </p>
<p>Another level 3 tactic is to take offence at the tone or terms of an opposing view, without addressing its substance (BadHom 1). This is more civil than calling someone an FBDZS — a fool, bigot, denier, zealot or snowflake (BadHom 3). But by shifting off-topic to invoke rules of civility, it offers scope to censor or end the exchange without conceding any substantive point.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-differences-between-free-speech-hate-speech-and-academic-freedom-and-they-matter-124764">There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom – and they matter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Heretic protection’ on campus – but with rigour</h2>
<p>Many debates mix level 2 and level 3 ways of arguing. Some are “won on the day” with level 3 tactics alone. But rhetorical point-scoring doesn’t amount to scholarly refutation. </p>
<p>Once a majority view seems settled on this basis, any dissenting minority view — even one with valid points to make — may become undiscussable. In a university context, this is where the principle of academic freedom does its work. As one scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-fundamental-principles-for-upholding-freedom-of-speech-on-campus-104690">observes</a>: “popular or mainstream ideas generally need no protection”. </p>
<p>As places of higher learning, universities assume responsibility for protecting free expression and open exchange when views diverge, while also promoting the practice of scholarly refutation. This stance affords “heretic protection” to minority views, while also exposing them to robust counter-argument. </p>
<p>As future leaders and experts, university graduates will need to reach and justify decisions that have wide real-world consequences. Often these decisions will be made in the face of firm opposition from many of those affected. Being able to argue clearly and persuasively, and to tell the difference between a well-reasoned case and slippery rhetoric, will be critical professional skills.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151019/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoff Sharrock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Enshrining the Model Code on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in legislation won’t ensure disagreements on campus remain civil. Here are some practical guidelines on how to disagree well.Geoff Sharrock, Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Vocational and Educational Policy, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1504492020-11-29T19:07:11Z2020-11-29T19:07:11ZUniversity free speech bill a sop to Pauline Hanson and other critics, but what difference will it make?<p>The federal government has been applying somewhat of a forensic lens to the question of free speech in Australian universities for several years. Most recently, as part of a package of deals cobbled together in September to get the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/news/job-ready-graduates-package">Job-Ready Graduates Package</a> through parliament, One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/protect-educators-one-nation-gets-academic-freedom-change-in-return-for-vote-20200928-p55zxl.html">convinced</a> the government to incorporate a definition of academic freedom into the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa2003271/">Higher Education Support Act 2003</a> that governs universities. The <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6619_first-reps/toc_pdf/20140b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r6619_first-reps/0000%22">Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020</a> was introduced into the House of Representatives on October 28 and is due to be debated in the Senate this week.</p>
<p>The amendments have their origins in an <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/review-university-freedom-speech">inquiry</a> into free speech on university campuses, chaired by former High Court Justice Robert French, which the government commissioned two years ago. In spite of government claims the review was warranted due to concerns about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/katharine-gelber-free-speech-crisis-in-australian-universities/12459718">the shutting down</a> of free speech, his <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/node/52661">report</a> found <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/french-review-finds-no-campus-free-speech-crisis/">no “free speech crisis”</a> in Australian universities. </p>
<p>French proposed a model code on freedom of speech that universities could adopt, while noting the importance of protecting their institutional autonomy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dan-tehan-wants-a-model-code-on-free-speech-at-universities-what-is-it-and-do-unis-need-it-119163">Dan Tehan wants a 'model code' on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Certain government members continued to express concern. These include a call in 2018 by Senator James Paterson to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/anu-and-western-civilisation-course-time-to-punish-unis-that-limit-freedom-of-thought/news-story/6bfc31e03935c63b12334121e5256e37">withhold funding</a> from universities if they failed to uphold free speech. </p>
<p>The government has apparently heeded such calls. This year the government tendered for a “<a href="https://www.tenders.gov.au/Atm/ShowClosed/1dc0254f-7db7-40ac-aef5-c016a6d539ca?PreviewMode=False">freedom of expression survey model</a>” to be incorporated into the annual <a href="https://www.qilt.edu.au/qilt-surveys/student-experience">Student Experience Survey</a> sent out to graduates.</p>
<p>In August 2020, Education Minister Dan Tehan <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/evaluating-progress-free-speech">announced</a> a new <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/independent-review-freedom-speech-australian-higher-education-providers">review</a> focused on evaluating how well universities have implemented the French model code on free speech. This review was due to report by the end of November.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-of-melbourne-policy-sets-limits-to-free-speech-on-campus-20190619-p51z7c.html">Most universities</a> are reported to have adopted, or to be adopting, free speech codes that uphold and implement the intent of the model code and comply with the statutory frameworks within which they operate. They differ in minor respects from one another and from the model code. The minister has <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F282021b8-a1a6-4987-899b-77870844dc06%2F0009%22">recognised</a> the need for this flexibility.</p>
<p>All this is happening in a context in which claims of a free speech crisis in Australian universities have been largely <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">discredited</a> and shown to be <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/katharine-gelber-free-speech-crisis-in-australian-universities/12459718">spurious</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is in the bill?</h2>
<p>The bill proposes to do two things.</p>
<p>The first is to change the terminology in the existing legislation of “free intellectual inquiry” to “freedom of speech and academic freedom”. This is a sensible change. There are important distinctions between academic freedom and freedom of speech that ought to be recognised. </p>
<p>Academic freedom is centred in the very specific <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/alumni/mls-news/issue-22-november-2019/the-two-university-freedoms">role of the university</a> in creating and disseminating knowledge through research and teaching. For that role to flourish, academic staff and students, when engaged in research and teaching, must be accorded high levels of freedom to articulate their views, in speech and in print. This does not mean academic freedom is absolute. </p>
<p>Academic freedom, in fact, requires that universities ensure policies and procedures are in place to ensure as many views as possible can be heard. This obliges them to prevent conduct such as intimidation, harassment or bullying that might limit the ability of the university to carry out its special role. It also imposes on speakers in those contexts the responsibility to speak rationally, to give reasons for holding their views, and to use evidence and justifications.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-fake-free-speech-crisis-could-imperil-academic-freedom-144272">How a fake 'free speech crisis' could imperil academic freedom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Freedom of speech, on the other hand, is a general freedom applicable to non-specialist contexts. The usual permissions and limitations that apply to free speech generally in the community also apply on the campus of a university, but are not specific to its special role.</p>
<p>The second change ushered in by the bill is to enshrine a definition of academic freedom in the act. It is derived from, but not identical to, the definition proposed by the French Review. The key difference is that a clause in the French definition that protected the freedom of academic staff to speak “on any issue in their personal capacity” has been removed. </p>
<p>This change is, again, a sensible one. Academic freedom pertains to academic contexts. It should not be confused with a general right to freedom of speech.</p>
<h2>What impacts will these changes have?</h2>
<p>The legislation is likely to have two effects on the status quo.</p>
<p>The first is that universities will be required to devote considerable resources and time to checking whether their current (and soon-to-be-implemented) policies and procedures are consistent with the statutory definition. </p>
<p>Substantively, this will achieve very little to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech on campus, since universities are already implementing free speech codes and had already enshrined protections for intellectual freedom in policy prior to that. Nevertheless, new efforts will be devoted to ensuring consistency between internal free speech codes, other policies and procedures, enterprise agreements and the new statutory definition. </p>
<p>This is likely to keep university lawyers busy. It is unlikely to substantively extend the existing protections of academic freedom or freedom of speech.</p>
<p>This suggests the second and symbolic effect of defining academic freedom in statute is the more important. Ultimately, it seems the purpose of this bill is less to do with substance and more to do with perception. </p>
<p>It will mean the government can say it has taken a stronger stand in defence of free speech. It has long wanted to be able to say this, even when the evidence suggests its free speech commitment is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-record-on-social-policy-big-on-promises-short-on-follow-through-114611">selective</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1027308428044066817"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-record-on-social-policy-big-on-promises-short-on-follow-through-114611">The Coalition's record on social policy: big on promises, short on follow-through</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Those who still subscribe to a discourse of a “free speech crisis” in universities will feel vindicated. They will feel the government has acted to defend free speech.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate universities have become a battleground for freedom of speech in ways that tie them up in endless “administrivia” with little impact on the real conditions in which academics work and students learn. Surely it would be better to leave universities alone to get on with their core business – teaching, conducting research, impacting on and engaging with the community in positive ways, and creating and disseminating knowledge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150449/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Gelber has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia.</span></em></p>Academic freedom will be defined in law. It will keep universities busy with compliance, but the main outcome is more symbolic: the government can say it has stood up for free speech.Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1442722020-08-25T20:08:27Z2020-08-25T20:08:27ZHow a fake ‘free speech crisis’ could imperil academic freedom<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354486/original/file-20200825-18-vdg3n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C1198%2C819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/newtown_grafitti/5363515370">Newtown grafitti/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Forceful suppression of political and scholarly views in universities has a long and shameful history. University of Cambridge Chancellor <a href="https://englishhistory.net/tudor/execution-john-fisher-sir-thomas-more/">John Fisher</a> was hanged, drawn and quartered for failing to support Henry VIII’s “<a href="https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item101101.html">great matter</a>”. A few years later, <a href="https://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe340.htm">John Hullier</a> was burned at the stake on Cambridge’s Jesus Green for refusing to renounce Protestantism. </p>
<p>We imagine our modern universities to be more civil. Certainly, in the 1950s, when Russel Ward’s appointment to the New South Wales University of Technology (now UNSW) was <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14490854.2014.11668530">blocked for political reasons</a>, this was frustrating, but not deadly. In Soviet Russia, by contrast, scientists who disagreed with Stalin’s approved theory of genetics went to prison. Some were executed. </p>
<p>These events show why academic freedom matters. Academic freedom is related to free speech in universities, the subject of a public debate that prompted the federal government to <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/independent-review-freedom-speech-australian-higher-education-providers-0">commission a review</a> of the issue in 2018. This month the government <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/independent-review-freedom-speech-australian-higher-education-providers">appointed Professor Sally Walker</a> to <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/evaluating-progress-free-speech">monitor universities’ adoption of a code of free speech</a> arising from the review. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dan-tehan-wants-a-model-code-on-free-speech-at-universities-what-is-it-and-do-unis-need-it-119163">Dan Tehan wants a 'model code' on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This sounds like a good thing, which we would expect to reinforce academic freedom. However, in this case, the category of “free speech” actually conceals particular political interests that could threaten academic freedom. </p>
<h2>Free speech and academic freedom</h2>
<p>Academic freedom has been very hard won. Such freedoms are important because they are how we know we can trust scholars to tell the truth about the discoveries they make, even when that means society, politics or the economy may need to change as a result. If Stalin had allowed his geneticists academic freedom, for example, they might well have prevented <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor">widespread famine</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-tragic-story-of-soviet-genetics-shows-the-folly-of-political-meddling-in-science-72580">The tragic story of Soviet genetics shows the folly of political meddling in science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Robert French" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=880&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=880&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=880&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1106&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1106&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354312/original/file-20200824-18-1czosxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1106&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Robert French’s review didn’t find evidence of systemic problems with free speech in Australian universities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge/Wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, when the <a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/free-speech-crisis-at-australias-universities-confirmed-by-new-research">Institute of Public Affairs</a> and the <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/research/culture-prosperity-civil-society/free-speech/">Centre for Independent Studies</a> used a system of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/katharine-gelber-free-speech-crisis-in-australian-universities/12459718">policy “audits</a>” <a href="https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/the-institute-of-public-affairs-and-the-globalised-network-of-free-speech-warriors/">imported from overseas</a> to declare a “free speech crisis” in Australian universities, this was taken seriously. Although academic freedom is different from free speech, the suppression of free speech can sometimes inhibit academic freedom. </p>
<p>One of our most meticulous retired High Court judges, Robert French, wrote a <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/report_of_the_independent_review_of_freedom_of_speech_in_australian_higher_education_providers_march_2019.pdf">300-page report</a> on the subject. He concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Reported events […] do not establish a systemic pattern of action […] adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in the higher education sector. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>French was not the only one who took the time to consider the question. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/free-speech-on-campus/10876206">Philosophers</a>, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/katharine-gelber-free-speech-crisis-in-australian-universities/12459718">legal scholars</a> and <a href="https://www.miragenews.com/summit-to-explore-issues-of-academic-freedom-and-autonomy/">vice-chancellors</a> authentically explored free speech and academic freedom from every angle. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It became evident there was no “crisis” at all. Nevertheless, conservative commentators kept saying there was. No review could mollify them. </p>
<p>The rather more <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/evaluating-progress-free-speech">alarming news</a> that the government has appointed another legal authority to monitor university compliance with French’s model code of free speech is unlikely to satisfy them either. The “crisis” cannot be resolved by assuring free speech, because that is not what it was about.</p>
<h2>A ‘crisis’ born of an anti-PC campaign</h2>
<p>The so-called “free speech crisis” is actually an anti-political correctness campaign waged by particular groups of conservative intellectuals. French’s <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/report_of_the_independent_review_of_freedom_of_speech_in_australian_higher_education_providers_march_2019.pdf">review</a> shows some Australian conservatives looked to the success of such campaigns in the United States and the United Kingdom in increasing the political right’s power. They manufactured a similar “crisis” in Australian universities to achieve the same ends here.</p>
<p>Anti-political correctness is a philosophy that is not the same as free speech. Anti-political correctness claims that conservative students, lecturers and visitors to university campuses are unfairly limited in what they can say. Often this relates to so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump">politically correct</a>” subjects such as race, gender or sexuality.</p>
<p>The difference from free speech is obvious. Anti-PC advocates want to be able to say what they like, but they do not want to be called “racist”, “sexist” or “homophobic” in response. Anti-political correctness is always earned at the expense of someone else’s free speech.</p>
<p>Anti-political correctness is connected to <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-australians-ready-to-embrace-libertarianism-93576">libertarian philosophies</a>, which value individual freedom over collective well-being. However, anti-political correctness typically does not grant everyone the same freedom. </p>
<p>This is because anti-political correctness is linked to a conspiracy theory known as “Cultural Marxism”. Cultural Marxism is an imaginary left-wing movement that some conservatives believe deliberately coordinated a take-over of cultural institutions, including universities. Political sociologist Rachel Busbridge and her colleagues <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822">describe</a> the transfer of this conspiracy theory from the US to Australia, where what was a far-right fringe theory has taken root in more mainstream conservative movements.</p>
<p>So, when the Institute of Public Affairs points to a “free speech crisis” in universities, it’s in fact seeking to take universities back from Marxists who some conservatives (falsely) believe control higher education. This is clearly not about free speech at all. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Screen grab from IPA YouTube video on 'The Free Speech Crisis at Australia's Universities" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354314/original/file-20200824-24-ctevzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The IPA’s ‘free speech crisis’ campaign is a well-rehearsed political strategy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Institute of Public Affairs/YouTube</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Does anti-PC have a place in universities?</h2>
<p>Intellectuals earnestly exploring the supposed free speech crisis have suggested progressive (though probably not radical leftist) scholarship is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/free-speech-on-campus/10876206">more thoroughly developed</a> in universities than conservative thinking. This may be placing some limits on conservative students to explore their politics in a rigorous and critical way.</p>
<p>If the university system was at its best, the right kind of response would see scholars making a new bargain: I’ll read <a href="https://aynrand.org/">Ayn Rand</a> with you if you read <a href="http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/">Karl Marx</a> with me (I’m game). But those who manufactured a free speech crisis did not intend to produce this kind of critical engagement nor even an authentic scholarly conversation between thinkers with diverse politics.</p>
<p>This is a pity. Universities have many flaws – <a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-and-government-need-to-rethink-their-relationship-with-each-other-before-its-too-late-139963">they always have</a> – but also many uses. It would be useful if they provided the intellectual underpinnings to democracy, especially as the world changes. This means producing better conservative work than they currently achieve, while also continuing to nurture the universities’ quite well-developed progressive thinking. </p>
<p>This is a critical job. It’s not one that can be achieved by the loudest, most insulting yelling – though students are free to do that, too. But the job of the university, at its best, is to find a critical place for anti-political correctness on campus, just as for all kinds of ideas. </p>
<p>Students could fruitfully explore the history and philosophy of <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-australians-ready-to-embrace-libertarianism-93576">libertarianism</a> and anti-political correctness in political science, cultural studies, history, political economy and many other disciplines. Of course, they should similarly engage with feminism, critical race studies and postmodernism.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Portraits of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354316/original/file-20200824-16-1kx8ct4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A willingness to read both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx is not the kind of critical engagement many free speech campaigners have in mind.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Imposed ‘solution’ threatens academic freedom</h2>
<p>Imposing anti-political correctness on all members of the university as a compulsory philosophy undermines, rather than promotes, academic freedom. To do so under the cover of “free speech” is not only disingenuous, it further jeopardises our universities, which are already facing risks to academic freedom. These are increasingly due to the commercial pressures universities face. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-irony-in-punishing-universities-for-failing-to-uphold-freedom-of-speech-98548">The great irony in punishing universities for 'failing' to uphold freedom of speech</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Financial pressure was not always the source of threats to academic freedom. It used to be government. The predecessor to the <a href="http://www.nteu.org.au/">National Tertiary Education Union</a> was formed during the Cold War in part to defend academic freedom in Australia from the kind of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/McCarthyism">McCarthyism</a> going on in the United States. </p>
<p>In the 1950s, the union was active in the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14490854.2014.11668530">Ward case</a>, which was about academic freedom. The union was also very influential in the <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/orr-sydney-sparkes-11314">Orr case</a>, which it believed to be about academic freedom. (It was <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2606596">wrong</a> about this one, it turned out.)</p>
<p>Things have changed, but the union has continued to support academic freedom. More recently, the union spoke in support of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554">Peter Ridd</a>, whose comments on Sky News opposing his colleagues’ claims that climate change has affected the Great Barrier Reef got him sacked from James Cook University. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/egging-the-question-can-your-employer-sack-you-for-what-you-say-or-do-in-your-own-time-116880">Egging the question: can your employer sack you for what you say or do in your own time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This last case is rather different to the earlier ones, since many more commercial interests are at stake. Ridd’s <a href="https://au.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019/topdonations/">GoFundMe page</a> seeking support for a High Court appeal shows hundreds of thousands donated by the likes of <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/01/29/institute-of-public-affairs-climate-change-denialism/">Bryant Macfie</a>, whose commercial interests align with their denial of the majority of climate science. </p>
<h2>Commercial interests are a threat</h2>
<p>Universities are vulnerable to commercial pressure. Over the past 40 years, universities have become <a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-are-not-corporations-600-australian-academics-call-for-change-to-uni-governance-structures-143254">explicitly commercial enterprises</a>. A vice-chancellor’s job now pressures them to protect their institution’s “brand” first, perhaps more than academic freedom. </p>
<p>Although the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2020/123.html?context=1;query=Peter%20Ridd;mask_path=">specifics of the Ridd case</a> suggest this is actually about the university’s code of conduct, university managers have tended to be quicker to protect income streams than scholarly independence. </p>
<p>In 2016, La Trobe University management <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/01/latrobe-suspends-safe-schools-co-founder-and-academic-roz-ward-for-criticising-racist-australian-flag/">suspended Roz Ward</a> over a private post on Facebook supporting the “red flag forever”. Management reportedly responded to pressure that threatened the withdrawal of funding for their Centre for Health, Sex and Society. </p>
<p><a href="https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-15#acrefore-9780190228637-e-15-div1-7">Academic capitalism</a> has grown in universities worldwide since the 1980s. Its critics have regularly pointed out the academic freedom risks associated with commercialising scholarly endeavour. These have only increased as the logic of profit dominated higher education. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-are-not-corporations-600-australian-academics-call-for-change-to-uni-governance-structures-143254">'Universities are not corporations': 600 Australian academics call for change to uni governance structures</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Recently, the University of New South Wales appeared to allow its commercial interests – the importance of international fees paid by students from China – to trump its commitment to academic freedom when it <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/critical-test-of-academic-freedom-for-australian-universities-20200804-p55iec.html">deleted a tweet</a> by Elaine Pearson about human rights in Hong Kong. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1289337058104881152"}"></div></p>
<p>University of Queensland student Drew Pavlou recently <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-13/uq-upholds-suspension-student-drew-pavlou-anti-china-activist/12450926">lost an appeal</a> against his suspension. He claimed his suspension was punishment for speaking out about <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-uni-student-drew-pavlou-loses-appeal-against-suspension-at-the-university-of-queensland/news-story/4c7caae14d508ecdddb5da62e6b4c434">Chinese funders influencing course content</a>.</p>
<p>Aligning commercial interests to academic work was always fraught, but government funding too came with risks. In fact, mid-20th-century vice-chancellors were at first <a href="https://aph.org.au/2017/11/university-autonomy-and-the-public-interest/">reluctant to accept Commonwealth funding</a> for fear government interference would jeopardise academic freedom. Between the <a href="https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A53782">Murray review</a> of the 1950s and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-the-dawkins-revolution-25-years-on-19291">Dawkins reforms</a> of the 1980s, a “buffer body”, the Australian Universities Commission (later the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, when colleges of advanced education were included), sought to keep the government’s political interests at arm’s length from university funding. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00137105">buffer has long gone</a>. As the university commercialised, academic freedom has become more precarious. </p>
<p>From this point of view, the Walker <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/evaluating-progress-free-speech">appointment</a> to monitor university compliance with free speech seems perilous. Since there was no free speech crisis, the government’s attentiveness to free speech on Australian campuses is little more than a <a href="https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/DP96_8.pdf">dog-whistle</a> to particular political interests. </p>
<p>Depending on how Walker approaches her task, rather than protecting free speech in Australian universities, the <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179594282001">government’s policing of free speech</a>, ironically enough, may <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/04/rightwing-academic-freedom-policy-exchange-thinktank">threaten academic freedom</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144272/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Forsyth has received research funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Catholic University and the University of Sydney and is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p>The campaign for ‘free speech on campus’ mimics US and UK tactics of using a manufactured crisis to further the goal of increasing conservative political influence in universities.Hannah Forsyth, Senior Lecturer in History, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1426102020-07-15T09:34:42Z2020-07-15T09:34:42ZGovernment policy has left Muslim students feeling unable to speak up on campus<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347611/original/file-20200715-27-izucb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C6%2C2297%2C1717&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">University students and staff alike reported feeling like they cannot speak their mind due to concerns about the government's Prevent strategy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Amir Ridhwan/Shutterstocl</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When he first arrived at his university campus, Tom found his roommate was Muslim. He had never met a Muslim and was concerned about living with one. As far as he knew, Islam was a violent religion and most Muslims had links to terrorism. However, spending time living with Ahmed he came to know his roommate, and through him he came to understand more about Islam. He discovered unexpected similarities in their lives, common values and shared goals to complete their studies, find jobs and be successful. In Tom’s words:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think it really cooled my previous perception… generally, everyone associates Islam with terrorism, but for me, right now, I’ve seen Islam in a different way, a uniting factor… a common denominator between people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While Tom and Ahmed are not their real names, the situation is real and is one of many we uncovered during our <a href="https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FM00841X%2F1">research</a> into how Islam and Muslims are perceived among students across UK universities. Our <a href="https://www.soas.ac.uk/representingislamoncampus/publications/file148310.pdf">report</a> is the first nationwide assessment, based on a survey of 2,022 students across 132 universities, and interviews and focus groups conducted with 253 staff and students at six higher education institutions.</p>
<p>We found that the UK government’s counter terrorism strategy, Prevent, has reinforced negative stereotypes of Muslims and encouraged a culture of mutual suspicion and surveillance throughout universities. However, universities can take an active role in helping to build peaceful relations on campus, and beyond, by challenging prejudice and empowering Muslim and all marginal voices. As we discuss in our forthcoming book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/islam-on-campus-9780198846789?q=Scott-Baumann&lang=en&cc=gb">Islam on Campus</a>, suspicion and negative stereotypes need to be replaced with shared, equal and just understandings of who we all are. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-counter-extremism-debate-55714">Why both sides are wrong in the counter-extremism debate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How Prevent has curtailed freedoms</h2>
<p>The UK government has long maintained that radicalisation is a problem in UK universities and that its Prevent strategy is an essential means to tackle it – despite the Home Affairs Committee concluding in its <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/1446/144605.htm">2012 review of Prevent</a> that “there is seldom concrete evidence” that universities are sites of radicalisation, and as such the emphasis placed on universities “is now disproportionate”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P-qeQ3kiW7E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We found that the Prevent strategy appears to have had the effect of discouraging free speech within universities. Students and staff of all backgrounds, and Muslims in particular, feel over-scrutinised and constantly under pressure to say the “right thing”, or to be quiet. One British Bangladeshi Muslim student said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>there is a general feeling across Muslim communities that while dissent is a very, very strong British tradition, somehow it doesn’t apply to Muslims. So when Muslims want to dissent from the mainstream, then it becomes a shared value issue, whereas otherwise, for other people in society, dissent may still hold true.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-lecturers-are-pushing-back-against-counter-terrorism-creep-into-universities-93998">How lecturers are pushing back against counter-terrorism creep into universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our research group found that students who agree with the government are more likely to express negative views about Islam and Muslims. For example, students who see radicalisation as a problem on campus are four times more likely to believe that Muslims have not made a valuable contribution to British life. Those who support Prevent are almost three times more likely to see Islam as intolerant towards non-Muslims than those who believe Prevent corrodes university life. </p>
<p>Students and staff self-censor their discussions to avoid becoming the object of suspicion, and are sometimes discouraged from exploring, researching or teaching about Islam. Only a quarter of students said they felt entirely free to express their views on Islam in university contexts. We heard from students who were too scared to take books from the library because they felt they may be targeted by Prevent, and others who are not accessing mental health services for similar reasons. According to Ali, a politics student:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s problematic, because a lot of Muslims feel that they can’t air their views, they can’t voice their opinion, because they’ll be labelled extreme. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Encouraging intercultural understanding</h2>
<p>Despite clear evidence of unconscious bias, casual racism and discrimination, our research also revealed warm and sincere discussions between students of different faiths. We found the influence of university life enabled intercultural conversations and understanding, and that the impact of this extended far beyond campuses into the wider community and workplaces. </p>
<p>More than 70% of students agree that Muslims have made a valuable contribution to British life, and 85% agree that the majority of Muslims are good people. We found that people from different backgrounds studying, working and living together on campus leads to the uncovering of shared values, aims, and builds enduring friendships. Such encounters between people of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs and ways of life provide university students and staff with firsthand insights into the lives of those they perceive as different. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3889%2C2590&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347343/original/file-20200714-139992-187oz12.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Making friends and learning from them has been shown to be universities’ strongest bulwark against racism found in media and society.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">oneinchpunch/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found where Islamic Studies was taught with a <a href="https://www.soas.ac.uk/blogs/study/decolonising-curriculum-whats-the-fuss/">decolonisation approach</a>, where Islam and Muslims are studied as being <a href="https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6500/1/Updated%20Dr%20Siddiqui%20Report.pdf">inherent to British society</a> rather than alien from it, this had the effect of helping to dismantle “us and them” ways of thinking. However, with only a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/11/only-fifth-of-uk-universities-have-said-they-will-decolonise-curriculum">fifth of universities stating they are decolonising their curriculum</a> there is a long way to go.</p>
<h2>The power of friendships</h2>
<p>When a quarter of all students cite TV, newspapers, magazines, news websites and social media as their most important source of information about Islam, any understanding that stems from personal relationships is significant. These personal encounters challenge negative stereotypes found on campus and in the media, and extend new narratives around Islam and Muslims back into the communities from which students have come from. </p>
<p>We recommend that universities build on this approach, empowering marginal voices on campus, including Muslims, fostering respect among students, and developing knowledge of Islam. Universities should encourage these sorts of intercultural encounters in the classroom, across campus and throughout the curriculum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council</span></em></p>A nationwide report on Islamophobia on campus reveals that friendships between those of different backgrounds is most effective at dispelling racist views.Sariya Cheruvallil-Contractor, Assistant Professor in Faith and Peaceful Relations at the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1245262019-10-10T21:06:50Z2019-10-10T21:06:50ZFree speech on campus means universities must protect the dignity of all students<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296275/original/file-20191009-3846-17gdbh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=167%2C41%2C2485%2C1802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters showed up at the University of Utah in 2017 during an appearance by Ben Shapiro, the former editor of the alt-right publication Breitbart. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The following is an edited excerpt from a talk to be given at <a href="https://magna-charta.mcmaster.ca/">the Magna Charta at McMaster University</a> on Oct. 16, 2019.</em> </p>
<p>Free speech, a staple of modern democracy, has become the focal point for political and cultural forces impacting the university. Universities thrive in an environment of open inquiry. But <a href="https://archive.triblive.com/local/allegheny/14399015-74/group-criticizes-pennsylvania-schools-including-pitt-for-limiting-free-speech">recent controversies</a> in universities around the globe expose the difficulties of crafting a strong position on free speech in this polarized time.</p>
<p>Partly these controversies are a demonstration of the external pressures created by movements that <a href="https://academicmatters.ca/the-university-in-the-populist-age/">test the limits of democratic tolerance</a>, and partly they reflect changes in culture which affect the internal balance of power within the university.</p>
<p>Traditionally, <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3683603.html">higher education was dedicated to educating elites and preparing the next generation of political, religious and economic leaders</a>.
In recent decades, however, universities around the globe opened their gates to include a growing number of students, many of whom <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Half-Opened-Door-Discrimination-and-Admissions-at-Harvard-Yale-and/Synnott/p/book/9781412813341">belong to groups that were never previously considered admissible</a>.</p>
<p>Women and those who belong to racialized and religious minority groups, along with those from all social classes, have dramatically changed the composition of students and staff. These newer members bring with them new types of knowledge, and they reasonably expect that admission affords them not only access to the institution as it is, <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691179230/moving-up-without-losing-your-way">but also the opportunity to contribute to the university’s structures, practices and epistemologies</a>.</p>
<p>The diversity of the university community today is not merely a result of changing demographics, but in fact reflects an expansion of the university’s mission. The university has grown from an institution that serves a small segment of the population to one that serves as an engine for social mobility and equal opportunity. </p>
<h2>Inclusive freedom</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295018/original/file-20191001-173369-qc58k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Free Speech on Campus’ by Sigal R. Ben-Porath.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(University of Pennsylvania Press)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This new dynamic and the growing conundrum around free speech on campus is why I’m proposing a <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15762.html">democratic framework for higher education which I call “inclusive freedom</a>.” Inclusive freedom reflects the values of the university in protecting free thought, inquiry and expression, and in maintaining a commitment to the dignity of all students and faculty by allowing them to freely and equally contribute to this shared work. </p>
<p>In the vast majority of cases, in fact, an inclusive climate is one in which more people and more views are protected and expressed. Universities need to permit a wide range of speech content, within legal limits, so that they can protect the broadest possible range of views, perspectives and hypotheses in their effort to push the boundaries of knowledge. </p>
<p>But legal frameworks aren’t sufficient for guiding the university’s response to tensions around speech. Universities cannot carry out their contemporary missions if they abdicate responsibility to acknowledge and respond to the price that some pay for disparaging or biased free speech: the price is harmed dignity. It’s also living with the awareness that biased speech can breed further bias, in action or words, and can encourage illegal actions such hate speech or violence.</p>
<p>Responses to those diverse concerns <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/12/11/what-chicago-principles-miss-when-it-comes-free-speech-and-academic-freedom-opinion">can only be contextual and should take into account the history and social conditions of the specific institutions</a> in which such issues are put forth.</p>
<h2>Shared fate</h2>
<p>In my work as chair of the <a href="https://secretary.upenn.edu/univ-council/committees/open-expression">Committee on Open Expression at the University of Pennsylvania</a>, and in visits to dozen of campuses around the United States and Canada to help develop and implement open expression policies, I see the challenges that institutions face. I hear the concerns that students raise about the harms to their dignity caused by biased, racist or prejudiced speech. As a political philosopher who has studied the
<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691141114/citizenship-under-fire">social and educational effects of war</a> I am aware of the perils faced by societies in conflict, but I also know the important role that educational institutions can play in restoring a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2012.00452.x">sense of shared fate</a> to civic life. </p>
<p>This means universities must take an active stance in support of all members’ equal dignity, so that all are able to contribute to a shared mission. It also implies investing resources to support historically marginalized groups so that they are effectively able to participate in the open inquiry that takes place on campus. Beyond taking public positions against claims based on bigotry or hatred, universities should represent their values by creating a campus where everyone’s dignity is recognized and respected, and where all voices are heard.</p>
<p>We must represent university institutions for what they are: among the most ardent protectors of open expression in democracies. And we must do so in ways that allow for all members to equally participate in the conversation on campus. </p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sigal Ben-Porath does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Inclusive freedom reflects university values in protecting free thought, inquiry and expression, while protecting the dignity of all students and faculty by allowing them to equally contribute.Sigal Ben-Porath, Professor of Education, Associate member, Political Science and Philosophy, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1191452019-07-02T22:16:34Z2019-07-02T22:16:34ZRich private colleges in the U.S. are fuelling inequality – and right-wing populism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281282/original/file-20190625-81776-1yjkznp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C42%2C3528%2C2302&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oberlin College's lawsuit raises issues for global higher education, and has implications for U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Oberlin College in Ohio recently lost what began as a US$44.2 million defamation lawsuit because of its involvement in student protests against alleged racial profiling at a <a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/06/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bizarre-lawsuit-between-oberlin-college-and-a-local-bakery/">local bakery.</a> </p>
<p>The payment was later cut almost <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/06/28/Judge-halves-damages-in-lawsuit-against-Oberlin-College/stories/201906280160">in half to $25 million</a> but the case has still sent <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/10/oberlin-ordered-pay-bakery-11-million-over-protests">shock waves through American higher education</a>. It also has implications for Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign.</p>
<p>The private legal status of Oberlin and elite American universities is an important part of the story. The conservative media and Trump trolls are framing this as an example of left-wing political correctness, but the major problem with American colleges is not far-leftism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/subsidized-privilege-the-real-scandal-of-american-universities-113792">but excessive private privilege.</a></p>
<p>The Oberlin incident happened just after Trump was elected president in 2016. Three African-American Oberlin students (a young man and two young women) were involved in a scuffle with Allyn Gibson Jr., grandson and son of Gibson’s Bakery and Food Market owners. Gibson detained the male student after he had tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift two bottles of wine.</p>
<p>The male student eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, a lesser charge than the extreme <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/the-publicly-shamed-sue-oberlin-college-verdict/591379/">felony robbery charges</a> placed on him. </p>
<p>Oberlin students organized mass protests against the bakery, claiming racial profiling. Oberlin College administrators got involved on the protestors’ side, a jury decided, and have been ordered <a href="https://quillette.com/2019/06/20/ideology-and-facts-collide-at-oberlin-college/">to pay massive damages.</a></p>
<p>The Oberlin president is defending the university by acknowledging the shop-lifting but arguing that <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/06/22/735005809/oberlin-college-president-on-bakery-case">the university was not taking a side in the protests</a>. </p>
<p>As a sociologist, I’m interested in this case because while sociologists have <a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-annee-sociologique-2016-1-page-171.htm">addressed how private wealth and inequality are impacting campus and intellectual life in the United States</a>, they have ignored how the private elite colleges that dominate America’s unique higher educational system are feeding right-wing populism. </p>
<p>But I’m also a Canadian who did my undergraduate degree at Cleveland State University near Oberlin, and so as a student I had friends there. I admire its intellectual calibre and its faculty and students.</p>
<h2>Backlash politics?</h2>
<p>Right-wing media and social media commentators are now alleging a higher education system is promoting <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-groups-offer-alternative-to-new-wave-of-political-correctness-on-campuses">far-left ideology</a>, <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2019/06/13/Oberlin-College-bakery-lawsuit-student-crimes-racism-slander-activism/stories/201906130033">political correctness</a> and race-baiting.</p>
<p>Is a $25 million judgment against a college <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/07/01/judge-slashes-award-oberlin-case-only-25m">going to chill free speech on campuses?</a> Or is this a case of an excessively liberal college abusing their power and resources <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-lawsuit-woke-privilege/">to coddle and protect their excessively privileged students making unfair charges of racism against hard working local business people?</a> </p>
<p>Both uncritical Oberlin defenders and <a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/06/18/why-do-conservatives-hate-oberlin-so-much/">conservatives obsessed with the political correctness are missing</a> larger issues.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282281/original/file-20190702-126350-1bwpakn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The jury found that Oberlin officials were involved in supporting student protests against Gibson’s Food Mart & Bakery, pictured here.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Polarized lawsuit</h2>
<p>The Oberlin College administration are using the banner of student free speech to defend themselves against a major <a href="https://oberlinreview.org/18975/opinions/media-coverage-of-gibsons-verdict-misses-the-mark/">public relations disaster and financial hit</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2019/06/15/oberlin-college-gibsons-bakery-libel-lawsuit-race-community-free-speech/stories/20190614189">The protests against Gibson’s Bakery were unfair</a>. None of this erases the reality and injustice of racial profiling or <a href="https://thenewpress.com/books/new-jim-crow">mass incarceration in America</a>. Oberlin students were right to be outraged at initial felony charges, and surely it would have been better for all concerned if the incident had not been escalated. And students should not shoplift. </p>
<p>But Oberlin College argues that it is wrong that they are being <a href="https://oberlinreview.org/18970/news/jury-rules-for-gibsons-assigns-44-million-in-damages/">penalized simply for protecting the free speech rights of their students</a>. The details from the trial, however, particularly email evidence, do not reflect well on the senior administration, even when discounting the bias of <a href="https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/06/15/despicable-and-indefensible-legal-insurrections-thread-with-details-from-gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-is-a-must-read/">conservative sources that are ramping up the rhetoric</a>. </p>
<p>The jury found that officials of the school <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit.html">were involved in supporting the student protests</a>. Appeals are possible, even though Oberlin has now <a href="http://www.chroniclet.com/cops-and-courts/2019/06/19/Second-letter-from-Oberlin-College-president-gives-FAQ-cutting-through.html">admitted to unprofessional language.</a> </p>
<h2>U.S. private colleges and subsidized privilege</h2>
<p>The elephant in the room is the private non-profit status of Oberlin College. The most elite colleges in the U.S. are private, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/09/year-after-tax-law-changes-new-guidance-still-rolling-out-colleges">and, up until 2017 and 2018 changes in the law,</a> have not paid <a href="http://ephblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CRS.pdf">federal taxes on their massive endowments.</a> Nor do private nonprofit colleges contribute to the provision of collective social services of communities and states <a href="http://ncpl.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/resources/HenryHansmann-COLLEGEANDUNIVERSITYEXEMPTION.pdf">through property or sales taxes</a>. </p>
<p>Even the most elite Canadian universities have endowments that hover around $1 billion to $2 billion, while Harvard’s endowment tops the U.S. college endowment list at $38 billion. <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/Which-Colleges-Have-the/245587">Columbia and Yale’s endowments are respectively about $11 billion and $29 billion</a> and these latter two colleges border communities of racialized poverty <a href="https://www.plannersnetwork.org/2009/10/columbia-universitys-expansion-and-the-struggle-for-the-future-of-harlem/">in Harlem</a> and <a href="https://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-university-college-towns.html">New Haven</a>.</p>
<p>Oberlin has less than 3,000 students enrolled and an endowment of <a href="https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2019/06/13/jury-hits-oberlin-with-31-million-punitive-damages-bakery-protests/stories/20190613148">nearly $900 million</a>; the research-intensive Canadian university where I teach, McMaster, has more than 30,000 students enrolled and in 2017 its endowment <a href="https://impact.mcmaster.ca/sites/default/files/documents/eendowment_2016-2017_sm.pdf">was about $704.7 million</a>. The U.S. dollar is worth about C$1.30, so that means Oberlin’s endowment has more than USD$300 million than McMaster’s — at a school with 27,000 fewer students. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281276/original/file-20190625-81762-vm4nrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attorney Lee Plakas talks about his clients’ lawsuit claiming Oberlin College hurt their business and libelled them. In the background are Allyn W. Gibson, Allyn D. Gibson, Cashlyn Gibson, 11, David Gibson, and Lorna Gibson, on June 13, 2019, in Elyria, Ohio.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bruce Bishop/Chronicle-Telegram via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is disproportionately (though not exclusively) at the elite private research universities like Yale, Columbia and Harvard, and the smaller liberal arts colleges like Oberlin, where <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/557315/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-by-greg-lukianoff-and-jonathan-haidt/9780735224919">debates about trigger warnings, cultural appropriation and the deplatforming of conservative speakers have made headlines</a> and helped polarize American politics. The excessive educational privilege of American colleges create incidents like an earlier Oberlin controversy around <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-food-fight-at-oberlin-college/421401/">cultural appropriation of international food which made national headines</a>. </p>
<p>In this case, the <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/11/08/college-administrators-are-more-liberal-other-groups-including-faculty-members">excessive political interventions by Oberlin staff</a> and the <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674059092">lack of political diversity on the faculty, as at many colleges</a> give Donald Trump a target to scapegoat campus liberals.</p>
<p>Scapegoating helps hide the reality that it is the Republican Party that is the major <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GDf4DQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA31&dq=dark+money+in+US+politics&ots=4aoEo8x-O6&sig=QcmTBoa1s0g320VfjS9jF1Kl86Y#v=onepage&q=dark%20money%20in%20US%20politics&f=false">defender of privilege and class inequality</a>. </p>
<p>American liberalism’s commitment to equality in education, however, is compromised by an unwillingness to address the distorting effect of private universities. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/upshot/student-loan-debt-forgiveness.html">Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s plans to clear off massive student debt</a> do not confront the tuition inflation that is created in the private, not the public, sector of higher education.</p>
<h2>Private system: Incubator of culture wars</h2>
<p>Oberlin College must help their students learn how to combine the <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CPFHBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=Oberlin+college+left+history&ots=pPaGzDJd6D&sig=PklnCQ85Z2AVcxbvBbsw5LzpDKg#v=onepage&q=Oberlin%20college%20left%20history&f=false">proud history of progressivism the college has been a home to since the days of the underground railway</a> with a more disciplined concern with respect for different views. <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/01/us-provides-some-clarity-about-tax-endowments">Taxing the wealthy private colleges</a> could help pay for free public tuition, taking down the stakes in this national cultural war over education. The irony is that taxing <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/If-Republicans-Get-Their-Way/241659">the most affluent college endowments was promoted by Republicans</a> and <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/12/20/endowment-tax-passed/">has been opposed by high-profile Democrats</a> when a left version of this tax makes good sense.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/the-publicly-shamed-sue-oberlin-college-verdict/591379/">The Oberlin administration let their students down by not being the adults in the room,</a> and may have <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/new-election-map-ohio-colorado-no-longer-swing-states-n937646">strengthened Trumpism in a traditionally key swing state before 2020</a>. Competition for students paying tuition in the range of $50,000 to $70,000 in U.S. private colleges likely make administrators more interested in keeping students happy and safe rather than educated with politically diverse views. </p>
<p>Sociologists have rightly addressed significant pieces of the problems in American higher education <a href="https://thenewpress.com/books/lower-ed">by exposing the exploitation of for-profit colleges</a>, the <a href="https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo24663096.html">underfunding of public universities</a> and how <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=J9qv-A3q01wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=elijah+anderson&ots=B_kvOFIJci&sig=WDumNDQskEqLKns4F9nF1SFpeJs#v=onepage&q=elijah%20anderson&f=false">racial profiling incidents and racism play out in everyday life.</a></p>
<p>Scholars need to go further by confronting the fact that American private universities are part of the broader problem of inequality. Educators around the world should not see the American private system as the gold standard but as a deeply flawed incubator of cultural wars. Social democratic and public alternatives must be protected and fashioned in order to promote quality scholarship and provide broad access to higher education. </p>
<p>But the issue cuts deeper, as a university system led by elite privates lays the seeds for incidents that inevitably benefit the populist right, create tuition rates that leave far too many in debt and produce colleges not willing to tell the truth to students when they are in the wrong.</p>
<p><em>This is a corrected version of a story originally published July 2, 2019. The earlier story used an incorrect figure for Oberlin College’s endowment.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil McLaughlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is a $25 million judgement against Oberlin College going to chill free speech – or is the wealth of a publicly subsidized private college helping polarize debates about race and politics?Neil McLaughlin, Professor of Sociology, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1195972019-07-02T19:45:43Z2019-07-02T19:45:43ZFreedom of speech: a history from the forbidden fruit to Facebook<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282147/original/file-20190702-105182-1gchrfm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=598%2C0%2C3059%2C2000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Humans have always sought knowledge, all the way back to Eve.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wes Mountain/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This essay is part of a series of articles on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/the-future-of-education-72196">the future of education</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Free speech is in the news. Not least because several leading universities have adopted a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/dan-tehan-wants-a-model-code-on-free-speech-at-universities-what-is-it-and-do-unis-need-it-119163">model code</a>” to protect it on campus. And then there’s the Israel Folau saga, and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/israel-folau-it-may-be-free-speech-but-it-is-also-hate-speech-20190624-h1fn6v.html">debate over</a> whether his Instagram post was free speech, or just hate speech.</p>
<p>If the Bible is to be believed, humans have sought knowledge since <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A4-3%3A24&version=NIV">Eve</a>. They have been disagreeing since <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204">Cain and Abel</a>. From long before kings, people have been subject to rulers with a vested interest in controlling what was said and done.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1143044067082690562"}"></div></p>
<p>Humans have always had a need to ask big questions and their freedom to ask them has often pushed against orthodoxies. Big questions make many people uneasy. Socrates, killed by the Athenians for corrupting the youth <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/apology.htm">in 399 BCE</a>, is only the most iconic example of what can happen when politics and piety combine against intellectuals who ask too many questions. </p>
<p>Or questions of the wrong kind.</p>
<p>In all this, there’s an implicit idea we understand the basic meaning of “free speech”, and we are all entitled to it. But what does it really mean, and how entitled are we?</p>
<h2>Where does it come from?</h2>
<p>The Ancient Greek <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics">Cynics</a> – who valued a simple life, close to nature – valorised “parrhesia” or frank speech as an ethical, not a legal thing. Ancient polytheism (the belief in many gods) made the idea of religious intolerance <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/voltaire-toleration-and-other-essays">unheard of</a>, outside of condemning the odd philosopher. </p>
<p>But it was only in the 17th and 18th centuries that arguments for religious tolerance and the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Toleration-Conflict-Present-Ideas-Context/dp/0521885779">freedoms of conscience and speech</a> took the forms we now take for granted. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-free-speech-64797">Explainer: what is free speech?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism">Protestantism</a>, which began in Europe in the early 16th century, challenged the authority of the Catholic Church and its priests to interpret the Bible. Protestants appealed to individuals’ consciences and championed the translation of the Holy Book into the languages of ordinary people. </p>
<p>Protestant thinker <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/A-Letter-Concerning-Toleration">John Locke</a> argued, in 1689, that no person can compel another’s God-given conscience. Therefore, all attempts to do this should be forbidden. </p>
<p>At the same time, philosophers began to challenge the limits of human knowledge concerning God, immortality and the mysteries of faith. </p>
<p>People who claim the right to persecute others believe they know the truth. But the continuing disagreements between different religious sects <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-old-ideas-about-tolerance-can-help-us-live-more-peacefully-today-114082">speaks against</a> the idea God has delivered his truth uniquely and unambiguously to any one group. </p>
<p>We are condemned by the limits of our knowledge to learn to tolerate our differences. But not at any cost.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282138/original/file-20190702-105164-wtah9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We are condemned by the limits of our knowledge to learn to tolerate our differences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Defending freedom of conscience and speech is not an unlimited prospect. None of the great 18th century advocates of free speech, such as <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Voltaire">Voltaire</a>, accepted libel, slander, defamation, incitements to violence, treason or collusion with foreign powers, as anything other than crimes. </p>
<p>It was not intolerant to censor groups who expressed a wish to overthrow the constitution. Or those who would harm members of a population who committed no offences. It was not intolerant to sanction individuals who incite violence against members of other religious or racial groups, solely on grounds of their group identities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-charlottesville-how-we-define-tolerance-becomes-a-key-question-83793">After Charlottesville, how we define tolerance becomes a key question</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At stake in these limits of free speech is what 19th century philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill">John Stuart Mill</a> called the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle">harm principle</a>”. According to this idea, supposedly free speech that causes or incites harm to others is not truly “free” at all. </p>
<p>Such speech attacks the preconditions of civil debate, which requires a minimum of respect and safety for one’s opponents.</p>
<p>Mill also held that a good society should allow a diversity of views to be presented <a href="https://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html">without fear or favour</a>. A group in which unquestioned orthodoxy prevails may miss evidence, reason badly, and be unduly influenced by political pressures (making sure the “right” view is maintained). </p>
<p>A society should be able to check different views against each other, refute and rectify errors, and ideally achieve a more comprehensive and truer set of beliefs. </p>
<h2>Freedom of debate</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Speech-Problems-Philosophy-Haworth/dp/0415148049">Critics</a> of Mill’s diversity ideal have said it mistakes society for a university seminar room. They contend politicians and academics have <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/02/25/truth-and-politics">a more qualified sense</a> of the value of seeking knowledge than impartial inquirers. </p>
<p>This criticism points to the special place of universities when it comes to concerns surrounding freedom of speech, past and present.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dan-tehan-wants-a-model-code-on-free-speech-at-universities-what-is-it-and-do-unis-need-it-119163">Dan Tehan wants a 'model code' on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When the great medieval universities were founded, they were established as autonomous <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Universities-Charles-Homer-Haskins/dp/0801490154">corporations</a>, as against private businesses or arms of public government.</p>
<p>If free inquiry to cultivate educated citizens was to flourish, the thought was, it must be <a href="https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/12069/Sharpe_Issue1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">insulated from the pressures</a> of economic and political life. If an intellectual is a paid spokesman of a company or government, they will have strong incentives to suppress inconvenient truths, present only parts of the evidence, and to attack opponents, not their arguments, so as to lead critics from the trail. </p>
<p>A large part of the medieval syllabus, especially in the Arts faculties, consisted of teaching students how to <a href="https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15151.html">question and debate</a> competing opinions. The medieval <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-literary/">summas</a> reflect this culture: a form of text where propositions were raised, counter-propositions considered and rebutted, and comprehensive syntheses sought.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282158/original/file-20190702-164980-1v4y46n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Students were taught to debate by putting forward an argument and addressing counter-arguments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/E0rsKheWqmk">Jonathan Sharp/Unsplash</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is not to deny some counter-positions were beyond the pale. It served a person well to entertain them only as “the devil’s advocate”. </p>
<p>And at different times, certain propositions were condemned. For instance, the so called “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277">Condemnations</a>” of 1210-1277 at the medieval University of Paris, constrained a set of teachings considered heretical. These included teachings of Aristotle such as that human acts are not ruled by the providence of God and that there was never a first human.</p>
<p>At other times, books considered immoral by the Roman Catholic Church were burnt or put on the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Index-Librorum-Prohibitorum">Index</a> of prohibited works. And those that published such works, such as the 12th Century philosopher and poet Peter <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/abelard/">Abelard</a>, were imprisoned. </p>
<p>Such practices would survive well into the 18th century in Catholic France, when encyclopedist <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/diderot/">Denis Diderot</a> suffered a similar fate.</p>
<p>Early modern forms of scientific inquiry challenged the medieval paradigm. It was felt to <a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/birth-of-the-modern-mind-the-intellectual-history-of-the-17th-and-18th-centuries.html">rely too much</a> on an established canon of authorities and so neglect peoples’ own experiences and capacities to reason on what these experiences revealed about the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-the-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong-65117">What exactly is the scientific method and why do so many people get it wrong?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Philosopher <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/bacon/francis/b12a/index.html">Francis Bacon, sometimes known as the father of empiricism, argued</a> we cannot rely on the books of professors. New ways of asking questions and testing provisionally held hypotheses about the world should become decisive.</p>
<p>Since nature is so vast, and humans so limited, we would also need to inquire as part of a shared scientific culture, rather than placing our faith in individual geniuses. </p>
<p>Each inquirer would have to submit her results and conclusions to the scrutiny and testing of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Regimens-Mind-Modern-Cultura-Tradition/dp/0226116395">their peers</a>. Such dialogue alone could make sure anyone’s ideas were not the fancies of an isolated dreamer. </p>
<p>Without this form of freedom of inquiry, with active fostering of dissenting voices, there could be no sciences.</p>
<h2>Where are we now?</h2>
<p>People from different political camps agonise about the fate of free speech. Those on the right point to humanities departments, arguing an artificial, <a href="https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/">unrepresentative conformism</a> presides there. Those on the left have long pointed to economics and business departments, levelling similar accusations.</p>
<p>All the while, all departments are subject to the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-University-Governance-Reinvention-Australia/dp/052179448X">changing fate of universities</a> that have lost a good deal of their post-medieval independence from political and economic forces.</p>
<p>So, the situation is not as simple as the controversies make it.</p>
<p>On one hand, charges of ideological closure need to be balanced against the way a certain (already discovered) truth exerts what philosopher and political analyst <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/02/25/truth-and-politics">Hannah Arendt</a> termed a coercive value.</p>
<p>No one is intellectually “free”, in any real sense, to claim the earth is flat. Blind denial of overwhelming evidence, however inconvenient, is not an exercise of liberty.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978">No, you're not entitled to your opinion</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On the other hand, in more behavioural disciplines like politics, there is no one truth. When learning about social structures, to not consider conservatives as well as progressives is to foreclose students’ freedom of inquiry. </p>
<p>To teach <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/23da4f1e-df48-11e3-86a4-00144feabdc0">a single economic perspective</a> as unquestionably “scientific”, without considering its philosophical assumptions and historical failings, is likewise to do free inquiry (and our students) a disservice.</p>
<p>The question of how we should teach openly anti-liberal, anti-democratic thinkers is <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37018845/Dangerous_Minds_in_Dangerous_Times">more complex</a>. But surely to do so without explaining to students the implications of these thinkers’ ideas, and how they have been used by malign historical forces, is once more to sell intellectual freedom (and our democracy) short.</p>
<p>The final curve ball in free speech debates today comes from social media. Single remarks made anywhere in the world can now be ripped from their context, “go viral”, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/books/review/jon-ronsons-so-youve-been-publicly-shamed.html">cost someone</a> their livelihood.</p>
<p>Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, depends on the ability of people of differing opinions to state their opinions (so long as their opinions are not criminal and don’t incite hatred or violence) without fear that, by doing so, they will be jeopardising their own and loved ones’ well-being.</p>
<p>When such conditions apply, as the Colonel used to say on Hogan’s Heroes, “we have ways of making you talk”. And also ways of keeping people silent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119597/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Sharpe works for Deakin University, and has previously received ARC funding to work on religion and politics, and the history of different conceptions of philosophy.</span></em></p>Free inquiry has always been a fraught business, from Eden to Facebook, but is a key component of any open society. It shouldn’t be taken for granted.Matthew Sharpe, Associate Professor in Philosophy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1191632019-06-23T19:49:40Z2019-06-23T19:49:40ZDan Tehan wants a ‘model code’ on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280631/original/file-20190621-149827-qai58y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An independent review found there was no freedom of speech crisis at universities, but it recommended a model code of conduct.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal education minister, Dan Tehan, has <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/theres-no-excuse-for-university-inaction-on-free-speech/news-story/e6241998b41a28c01507dfe2a4d2ff09">called on universities</a> to implement a model code to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus. He’s referring to the code drafted by a former High Court chief justice, Robert French, in <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/review-university-freedom-speech">his review</a> of freedom of speech in Australian universities.</p>
<p>Tehan said he commissioned the review due to concerns <a href="https://www.2gb.com/minister-announces-sweeping-inquiry-into-freedom-of-speech-at-universities/">certain views</a> were being shut down on campus. This followed <a href="http://honisoit.com/2018/09/protest-breaks-out-at-controversial-bettina-arndt-talk/">protests at Sydney University</a> during a talk by sex-therapist and commentator Bettina Arndt. The talk challenged notions of a rape culture on campus.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1139684694935527425"}"></div></p>
<p>French’s <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/report_of_the_independent_review_of_freedom_of_speech_in_australian_higher_education_providers_march_2019.pdf">report concluded</a> there was no systemic free speech crisis in Australian universities. But he noted many universities’ policies use broad terms that create the potential to limit free speech on campus. </p>
<p>He therefore suggested universities voluntarily strengthen their protections for free speech by adopting general principles, which he set out in a model code. So, what does that code look like? And should universities be adopting it?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is the model code?</h2>
<p>French’s proposed model code has, at its core, the need to ensure both the freedom of lawful speech and academic freedom. French differentiates between the two, which he says are <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-complicated-academic-freedom-and-freedom-of-speech">often conflated</a>. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The proposed Code uses the terms ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ instead of ‘freedom of intellectual inquiry’. They are intended to distinguish between freedom of speech as a common societal freedom and freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry as aspects of academic freedom. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The code also makes clear a university can restrict free speech and academic freedom if this is necessary to achieve the university’s core research and teaching mission, to comply with legal duties and to “foster the well-being of students and staff”.</p>
<p>This last element includes that universities have a duty to protect staff and students from discrimination. This acknowledges that a person’s freedom of speech stops when it starts to infringe on another’s rights.</p>
<p>The model code recognises that universities’ duties include preventing staff and students using lawful speech in a way that would be regarded as “likely to humiliate or intimidate” others. This provides quite a generous scope for universities to prevent discriminatory and vilifying speech, even if it would not meet the legal threshold for vilification under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">federal</a> law or state law <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204/s20c.html">such as in NSW</a>.</p>
<p>The code recognises that academic freedom can be limited by reasonable requirements about course content and pedagogy (although offensive or shocking material that is otherwise compliant is protected by academic freedom). </p>
<p>Finally, the model code turns to concerns that have <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/health/academic-freedom-is-not-in-crisis-20190329-p518us">dominated media headlines</a> and motivated the inquiry – hosting controversial speakers. </p>
<p>In this respect, the code:</p>
<ul>
<li>protects universities’ ability to set the conditions under which external speakers will use their facilities, including paying for security costs</li>
<li>requires universities to seek to minimise the impact of donors and other third parties on staff and students’ free speech and academic freedom</li>
<li>respects universities’ ability to deny speakers a platform if their content is unlawful, or prevents the university from fulfilling its duty to foster staff and student well-being, or if it involves </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>the advancement of theories or propositions which do not meet scholarly standards […] and would be […] “detrimental to the university’s character as an institution of higher learning”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It could be said, then, that these protections <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-need-for-the-chicago-principles-in-australian-universities-to-protect-freedom-of-speech-107001">reflect the existing state of affairs</a> on Australian campuses. Although universities, their staff and students all stand to benefit from clarifying obscure policy language, the pressure for universities to take action may be more about politics than anything else. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-the-actual-threats-to-academic-freedom-on-australian-campuses-108596">We need to talk about the actual threats to academic freedom on Australian campuses</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are universities doing?</h2>
<p>In response to the French report, Universities Australia’s chief executive, Catriona Jackson, said universities would consider its recommendations. She also emphasised universities’ independence, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-freedom-of-speech-crisis-universities-welcome-inquiry-conclusion-20190406-p51b">saying</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] sector-wide legislative or regulatory requirements would be aimed at solving a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist and any changes could conflict with fundamental principles of university autonomy. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-of-melbourne-policy-sets-limits-to-free-speech-on-campus-20190619-p51z7c.html">University of Melbourne</a> has, in recent days, released a new policy on free speech, which is <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1342">substantially similar</a> to the model code. It begins from the presumption free speech, academic freedom and university autonomy are all “core values”. It limits free speech that “unreasonably disrupts activities or operations of the university […] or jeopardises the physical safety of individuals”. </p>
<p>But it arguably goes further in permitting limitations on speech that “undermines the capacity of individuals to participate fully in the University”. </p>
<p>This provision is particularly interesting. At first it appears similar to the model code’s duty of the university to foster student and staff well-being, but the code requires the university to prevent discriminatory harms. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1141437054154203136"}"></div></p>
<p>By contrast, the University of Melbourne’s policy suggests an affirmative duty for members of the university community to support one another’s capacity for full engagement in university life. This is possibly a more positive understanding of the freedom than encapsulated by the model code.</p>
<p>Finally, and illustrating the complexity of these issues, Melbourne’s new policy links to other detailed university policies that regulate <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1328">workplace behaviour</a>, <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1324">student conduct</a>, <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1115">university facilities</a>, <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1314">acceptable use of IT</a>, and <a href="https://policy.unimelb.edu.au/MPF1224">academic freedom</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-need-for-the-chicago-principles-in-australian-universities-to-protect-freedom-of-speech-107001">There's no need for the 'Chicago principles' in Australian universities to protect freedom of speech</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The University of Sydney has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/sydney-university-to-adopt-principles-of-terrific-free-speech-code-20190619-p51zd3.html">also announced</a> plans to “thoughtfully” implement the principles of the model code. It remains to be seen how this will play out.</p>
<p>The university <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/students-given-green-light-to-protest-after-university-dismisses-free-speech-concerns-20190604-p51ueo.html">recently concluded</a> its investigation into the protests against Arndt, disciplining one student while also reinforcing that protests are protected speech. </p>
<p>Focusing on policies is only part of the story. As French stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A culture powerfully predisposed to the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom is ultimately a more effective protection than the most tightly drawn rule. A culture not so predisposed will undermine the most emphatic statement of principles.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We could not agree more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119163/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Gelber has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Academy of Social Sciences Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristine Bowman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pressure for universities to take action on free speech may be more about politics than anything else.Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of QueenslandKristine Bowman, Professor of Law, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1070012018-11-15T05:39:30Z2018-11-15T05:39:30ZThere’s no need for the ‘Chicago principles’ in Australian universities to protect freedom of speech<p>This week the government <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/former-high-court-chief-robert-french-to-lead-inquiry-into-free-speech-on-campus-20181113-p50ft1.html">asked</a> former High Court Chief Justice Robert French to head an inquiry into free speech on universities. Education minister Dan Tehan <a href="https://www.2gb.com/minister-announces-sweeping-inquiry-into-freedom-of-speech-at-universities/">claimed</a> it was because concerns had been raised about people shutting down the views of those they disagree with, and security costs for controversial speakers on campus. </p>
<p>Universities are <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/free-speech-at-universities-to-face-probe">accusing the minister</a> of “jumping to the wrong conclusions”, based on misleading and selective media reports.</p>
<p>Justice French is <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/review-university-freedom-speech">being asked to review</a> the “rules and regulations protecting freedom of speech on university campuses”. This will include codes of conduct, enterprise agreements, policy statements and strategic plans. This is despite the fact <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-irony-in-punishing-universities-for-failing-to-uphold-freedom-of-speech-98548">universities already protect</a> freedom of speech and, relatedly, academic freedom.</p>
<p>The Minister suggested Australia could consider adopting an Australian version of the “Chicago statement”. So what is the Chicago statement, and would Australian universities benefit from adopting it?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/four-fundamental-principles-for-upholding-freedom-of-speech-on-campus-104690">Four fundamental principles for upholding freedom of speech on campus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The Chicago statement</h2>
<p>In 2014, the President (equivalent to the Vice Chancellor of an Australian university) of the University of Chicago convened a committee, chaired by highly acclaimed free speech scholar Professor Geoffrey Stone, to <a href="https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/page/report-committee-freedom-expression">draft a statement</a> that would articulate the university’s commitment to “free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation”.</p>
<p>The university took this step in response to free speech controversies on university campuses in the United States. Examples include disinviting controversial speakers, pressure on faculty to make public apologies for statements some considered offensive, demands for the removal of historic statues or monuments, and the existence of campus speech codes which prohibit students from engaging in hate speech on the ground of race, sexuality, or gender.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/sites/freeexpression.uchicago.edu/files/FOECommitteeReport.pdf">Chicago statement</a> recognises free speech on campus as an issue that goes to the <a href="http://president.uchicago.edu/page/address-colgate-university">core mission</a> of the university as a place of learning. It defends free and open inquiry in all matters, and guarantees the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-irony-in-punishing-universities-for-failing-to-uphold-freedom-of-speech-98548">The great irony in punishing universities for 'failing' to uphold freedom of speech</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It also recognises that freedom of speech does not mean people can say whatever they want, wherever they want. It permits restrictions on speech that violates the law, is defamatory, threatens or harasses, invades privacy or confidentiality, or is incompatible with the functioning of a university.</p>
<p>The statement is a well-articulated and clear enunciation of three things: </p>
<p>1) the importance of freedom of speech to learning</p>
<p>2) the recognition that free speech must have limits</p>
<p>3) the articulation that any such limits must be carefully and narrowly circumscribed. </p>
<p>As of February 2018 the Chicago statement had been <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2018/02/28/35-universities-adopt-the-chicago-statement-on-free-speech-1590-to-go/#31de3442771b">adopted by 34 other universities</a> in the US. But this still leaves around 1,600 universities that have not signed up, possibly because their existing policies already support the same views.</p>
<h2>Do Australian universities need it?</h2>
<p>Shortly before Justice French was invited by the government to conduct a review into free speech in Australian universities, he <a href="http://www.academyoflaw.org.au/resources/Documents/Austin%20Asche%20Oration,%20Free%20Speech%20and%20the%20Law%20on%20Campus%2017.9.2018%20(3).pdf">gave a speech on the issue</a>. </p>
<p>He recognised that even a detailed and prescriptive charter would not provide a framework in which difficult cases can be clearly and uncontroversially resolved. Nevertheless, he was open to the possibility of <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-complicated-academic-freedom-and-freedom-of-speech">legislative intervention</a> to impose “protective rules”.</p>
<p>However, if the Chicago principles were to form the basis for any such legislative intervention, they would be unlikely to be of benefit in resolving the issues with which the minister appears to be concerned.</p>
<p>This is for two reasons. First, Australian universities already protect free speech in accordance with principles very similar to those enunciated in the Chicago principles. All universities are <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa2003271/s19.115.html">required by Australian law</a> to uphold “free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research”. Universities’ <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/policies/showdoc.aspx?recnum=PDOC2011/215&RendNum=0">codes of conduct</a> already uphold the right of students to engage in critical and open inquiry.</p>
<p>The second reason is that the Chicago principles recognise that free speech is not a reason for protecting unlawful conduct. Australia and the US have wildly different views on what constitutes unlawful speech-based conduct. Here, speech is able to be regulated to a far greater degree than in the US.</p>
<p>This means that all the current, valid, restrictions on speech that exist in Australia would be untouched by applying the Chicago principles. For example, Australia possesses comprehensive anti-vilification laws <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">federally</a>, in every <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/s124a.html">state</a> and in the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/da1991164/s67a.html">ACT</a>, which prohibit public hate speech. These would be unaffected. </p>
<p>Applying the principles here would also make no difference to other <a href="https://theconversation.com/free-speech-is-at-risk-in-australia-and-its-not-from-section-18c-64800">restrictions on speech</a> in Australia, such as laws barring journalists from reporting in certain instances, which present far greater risks to free speech than anything that’s occurred on campus of late.</p>
<p>This inquiry is expensive and unnecessary. There is no good evidence we have a problem with free speech on our campuses. Justice French’s review will take four months. While we await the outcome, university staff will no doubt continue to uphold their existing commitments to robust and open debate in learning, teaching, research and engagement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107001/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Gelber has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Academy of Social Sciences Australia.</span></em></p>There’s no evidence we have a problem with free speech on our campuses. The free speech inquiry is expensive and unnecessary.Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1016542018-09-17T19:45:19Z2018-09-17T19:45:19ZIn 1968, computers got personal: How the ‘mother of all demos’ changed the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232180/original/file-20180815-2903-1l8mkct.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A scene from Doug Engelbart's groundbreaking 1968 computer demo.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.dougengelbart.org/firsts/dougs-1968-demo.html#3">Doug Engelbart Institute</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On a crisp California afternoon in early December 1968, a square-jawed, mild-mannered Stanford researcher named Douglas Engelbart took the stage at San Francisco’s Civic Auditorium and proceeded to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/04/from-the-vault-watching-and-re-watching-the-mother-of-all-demos/">blow everyone’s mind</a> about what computers could do. Sitting down at a keyboard, this computer-age Clark Kent calmly showed a rapt audience of computer engineers how <a href="http://dougengelbart.org/firsts/dougs-1968-demo.html">the devices they built could be utterly different kinds of machines</a> – ones that were “alive for you all day,” as he put it, immediately responsive to your input, and which didn’t require users to know programming languages in order to operate. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232179/original/file-20180815-2894-veevoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The prototype computer mouse Doug Engelbart used in his demo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_Engelbart%27s_prototype_mouse_-_Computer_History_Museum.jpg">Michael Hicks</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Engelbart typed simple commands. He edited a grocery list. As he worked, he skipped the computer cursor across the screen using a strange wooden box that fit snugly under his palm. With small wheels underneath and a cord dangling from its rear, Engelbart dubbed it a “mouse.”</p>
<p>The 90-minute presentation went down in Silicon Valley history as the “<a href="https://www.wired.com/2010/12/1209computer-mouse-mother-of-all-demos/">mother of all demos</a>,” for it <a href="http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3954.html">previewed a world of personal and online computing</a> utterly different from 1968’s status quo. It wasn’t just the technology that was revelatory; it was the notion that a computer could be something a non-specialist individual user could control from their own desk. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M5PgQS3ZBWA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The first part of the ‘mother of all demos.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shrinking the massive machines</h2>
<p>In the America of 1968, computers weren’t at all personal. They were refrigerator-sized behemoths that hummed and blinked, calculating everything from consumer habits to missile trajectories, cloistered deep within corporate offices, government agencies and university labs. Their secrets were accessible only via punch card and teletype terminals.</p>
<p>The Vietnam-era counterculture already had made mainframe computers into ominous symbols of a soul-crushing Establishment. Four years before, the student protesters of <a href="https://fsm.berkeley.edu/free-speech-movement-timeline/">Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement</a> had pinned signs to their chests that bore a riff on the prim warning that appeared on every IBM punch card: “<a href="http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/FSM_fold_bend.html">I am a UC student. Please don’t bend, fold, spindle or mutilate me</a>.” </p>
<iframe sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation allow-popups" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="185" frameborder="0" src="https://embed.radiopublic.com/e?if=heat-and-light-WYDE55&ge=s1!d28fa9002b17ee1c91a07ef2450ba6954a597435"></iframe>
<p><strong>Hear Prof. O'Mara discuss this topic on our <a href="https://heatandlightpod.com">Heat and Light podcast</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Earlier in 1968, Stanley Kubrick’s trippy “2001: A Space Odyssey” mined moviegoers’ <a href="https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/09/hal-mother-and-father/">anxieties about computers run amok</a> with the tale of a malevolent mainframe that seized control of a spaceship from its human astronauts. </p>
<p>Voices rang out on Capitol Hill about the uses and abuses of electronic data-gathering, too. Missouri Senator Ed Long regularly delivered floor speeches he called “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/intruders-the-invasion-of-privacy-by-government-and-industry/oclc/468772015">Big Brother updates</a>.” North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin declared that mainframe power posed a threat to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. “The computer,” <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/GPO-CRECB-1970-pt23/GPO-CRECB-1970-pt23-5/content-detail.html">Ervin warned darkly</a>, “never forgets.” As the Johnson administration unveiled plans to centralize government data in a single, centralized national database, New Jersey Congressman Cornelius Gallagher declared that it was just another grim step toward scientific thinking taking over modern life, “<a href="https://newspaperarchive.com/eureka-humboldt-times-sep-08-1966-p-47/">leaving as an end result a stack of computer cards where once were human beings</a>.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/thing-makers-tool-freaks-and-prototypers-how-the-whole-earth-catalogs-optimistic-message-reinvented-the-environmental-movement-in-1968-95915">zeitgeist of 1968</a> helps explain why Engelbart’s demo so quickly became a touchstone and inspiration for a <a href="http://www.dougengelbart.org/firsts/dougs-1968-demo.html#3">new, enduring definition of technological empowerment</a>. Here was a computer that didn’t override human intelligence or stomp out individuality, but instead could, as Engelbart put it, “augment human intellect.” </p>
<p>While Engelbart’s vision of how these tools might be used was rather conventionally corporate – a computer on every office desk and a mouse in every worker’s palm – his overarching notion of an individualized computer environment hit exactly the right note for the anti-Establishment technologists coming of age in 1968, who wanted to make <a href="https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3773600.html">technology personal and information free</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hXdYbmQAWSM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The second part of the ‘mother of all demos.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the next decade, technologists from this new generation would turn what Engelbart called his “wild dream” into a mass-market reality – and profoundly transform Americans’ relationship to computer technology. </p>
<h2>Government involvement</h2>
<p>In the decade after the demo, the crisis of <a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/primary-resources/watergate">Watergate</a> and revelations of <a href="https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB522-Church-Committee-Faced-White-House-Attempts-to-Curb-CIA-Probe/">CIA and FBI snooping</a> further seeded distrust in America’s political leadership and in the ability of large government bureaucracies to be responsible stewards of personal information. Economic uncertainty and an antiwar mood <a href="https://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/science-and-the-2009-budget/">slashed public spending</a> on high-tech research and development – the same money that once had paid for so many of those mainframe computers and for training engineers to program them. </p>
<p>Enabled by the miniaturizing technology of the <a href="http://www.computerhistory.org/visiblestorage/1960s-1980s/ics-microprocessors-memories/the-microprocessor/">microprocessor</a>, the size and price of computers <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-how-computing-power-has-changed-over-time-2017-11">plummeted</a>, turning them into affordable and soon indispensable tools for work and play. By the 1980s and 1990s, instead of being seen as machines made and controlled by government, computers had become <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35897&st=Moscow+State+University&st1=">ultimate expressions of free-market capitalism</a>, hailed by business and political leaders alike as examples of what was possible when government got out of the way and let innovation bloom.</p>
<p>There lies the great irony in this pivotal turn in American high-tech history. For even though “the mother of all demos” provided inspiration for a personal, entrepreneurial, government-is-dangerous-and-small-is-beautiful computing era, Doug Engelbart’s audacious vision would never have made it to keyboard and mouse without government research funding in the first place.</p>
<p>Engelbart was keenly aware of this, flashing credits up on the screen at the presentation’s start listing those who funded his research team: the Defense Department’s Advanced Projects Research Agency, later known as DARPA; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the U.S. Air Force. Only the public sector had the deep pockets, the patience and the tolerance for blue-sky ideas without any immediate commercial application.</p>
<p>Although government funding played a less visible role in the high-tech story after 1968, it continued to function as critical seed capital for next-generation ideas. Marc Andreessen and his fellow graduate students developed their groundbreaking web browser in a <a href="http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/enabling/mosaic">government-funded university laboratory</a>. DARPA and NASA money helped fund <a href="http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/">the graduate research project</a> that Sergey Brin and Larry Page would later commercialize as Google. Driverless car technology got a jump-start after a <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/-grand-challenge-for-autonomous-vehicles">government-sponsored competition</a>; so has nanotechnology, green tech and more. Government hasn’t gotten out of Silicon Valley’s way; it remained there all along, quietly funding the next generation of boundary-pushing technology.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FCiBUawCawo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The third part of the ‘mother of all demos.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today, public debate rages once again on Capitol Hill about computer-aided <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/mark-zuckerberg-testimony.html">invasions of privacy</a>. Hollywood spins apocalyptic tales of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/">technology run amok</a>. Americans spend days staring into screens, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.html">tracked by the smartphones in our pockets</a>, hooked on <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/6/25/17501224/instagram-facebook-snapchat-time-spent-growth-data">social media</a>. Technology companies are among the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-02/amazon-closes-on-apple-in-the-1-trillion-stakes">biggest and richest</a> in the world. It’s a long way from Engelbart’s humble grocery list.</p>
<p>But perhaps the current moment of high-tech angst can once again gain inspiration from the mother of all demos. Later in life, Engelbart described his life’s work as a quest to “<a href="http://archive.org/details/XD302_86ACM_Prese_AugKnowledgeWorkshopParts1and2&start=1">help humanity cope better with complexity and urgency</a>.” His solution was a computer that was remarkably different from the others of that era, one that was humane and personal, that augmented human capability rather than boxing it in. And he was able to bring this vision to life because government agencies funded his work. </p>
<p>Now it’s time for another mind-blowing demo of the possible future, one that moves beyond the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/technology/regulating-tech-companies.html">current adversarial moment</a> between big government and Big Tech. It could inspire people to enlist public and private resources and minds in crafting the next audacious vision for our digital future.</p>
<p><em>Our new podcast “<a href="https://heatandlightpod.com">Heat and Light</a>” features Prof. O'Mara discussing this story in depth.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/heat-and-light/id1424521855?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=134&fit=clip" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="134" height="34"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9oZWF0YW5kbGlnaHRwb2QuY29tL2ZlZWQucnNz"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=134&fit=clip" alt="" width="134" height="34"></a> <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=221807&refid=stpr"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236756/original/file-20180917-158222-1w998g0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=116&fit=clip" alt="Listen on Stitcher" width="116" height="34"></a> <a href="https://radiopublic.com/heat-and-light-WYDE55"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=105&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="105" height="34"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/History-Podcasts/Heat-and-Light-p1149068/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=86&fit=clip" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="86" height="34"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margaret O'Mara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A 90-minute presentation in 1968 showed off the earliest desktop computer system. In the process it introduced the idea that technology could make individuals better – if government funded research.Margaret O'Mara, Professor of History, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/985332018-07-23T10:21:48Z2018-07-23T10:21:48ZHow free should speech on campus be?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228588/original/file-20180720-142417-1ole857.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A crowd gathers around speakers during a rally for free speech near the University of California, Berkeley campus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Berkeley-Ann-Coulter/509ca661fdf14287b5e5214425a74592/48/0">Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>From the editors:</em> Of all the places to put forth a controversial idea, perhaps none is more attractive than an American college campus. Similarly, perhaps no issue has vexed campus leaders more in recent times than the issue of whether and how to facilitate or regulate free speech on campus and still maintain safety and an <a href="http://www.wgem.com/story/37780637/2018/03/Wednesday/survey-finds-college-students-are-struggling-to-balance-free-speech-and-inclusivity">inclusive environment</a>.</p>
<p>The challenges associated with this <a href="https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/04/09/college-students-presidents-alike-free-speech-balancing-act/">balancing act</a> <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/14/white-nationalists-rally-university-virginia">came to a head</a> August 11, 2017, when a white supremacist rally marched through the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The next day, 32-year-old Heather Heyer was killed when a man drove a car into a group of demonstrators who were protesting the rally on a downtown mall.</p>
<p>We asked a panel of presidents – from Elon University, Bowdoin College and the University of Washington – these questions: As the nation commemorates the one-year anniversary of the Charlottesville tragedy, what is the most important thing you think needs to happen in order to make college campuses places where controversial ideas can be heard? Do you believe free speech should be treated differently on campus than it is in the rest of society? And if so, how?</p>
<h2>Not censorship but more speech</h2>
<p><strong>Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington</strong></p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227841/original/file-20180716-44085-3el05r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.washington.edu/president/biography/">University of Washington</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Universities are essential and suitable forums for discussion and debate of controversial topics. Debate helps students develop the skills that strengthen democracy, skills like critical thinking, reasoned argument and the ability to advance those arguments. We should always err in favor of more – not less – speech on campus.</p>
<p>That principle, however, is put to the test when campuses – especially public institutions – are targeted by speakers who seek to generate more heat than light, who have no intention of participating in a substantive debate. In some cases, they can’t or don’t articulate coherent arguments beyond profanity-laced provocations. Skillful at pushing the limits of free speech right up to the line of incitement, their aim is to attract publicity to their own personas or agendas. </p>
<p>Public universities are <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/354/234.html">legally obligated</a> to allow protected forms of speech, no matter how offensive or insipid. However, as leaders, we also have the right and the duty to publicly denounce repugnant speech and actions, like support for white supremacy.</p>
<p>It can be difficult to accept that even hateful and repugnant speech is protected by the Constitution and that allowing it to occur at public universities, sometimes elevating a speaker’s status, is the price we pay for ensuring everyone’s freedom of speech. </p>
<p>The remedy is not censorship, but more speech. </p>
<p>As institutions of learning, we are our own best solution for presenting and discussing ideas in substantive and respectful ways. Despite<a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Campus-Censors/241637"> breathless</a> <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/how-social-media-trolls-turned-uc-berkeley-into-a-free-speech-circus">headlines</a>, campuses remain places where controversial topics are routinely debated.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, education leaders and lawmakers need a push to increase civic education, similar to the push to <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all">increase STEM</a> education. A college degree should ensure that anyone, regardless of major, has grappled with some of the difficult questions facing modern democracies and has some historical understanding of free expression in the United States. Giving students the tools to understand their rights will help protect those rights.</p>
<p>University leaders also require better ways of deciding who should bear the true costs when public university campuses become places where society at large, not just our university community, engages in debate.</p>
<p>In the past, student associations could rarely afford the fees and travel expenses of speakers with national reputations or notoriety. But, between crowd-sourcing and financial backing from outside political groups, not to mention media-savvy speakers who know the value of publicity, even small student groups now host speakers who attract widespread attention and often protests, leading to <a href="http://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/04/uc-berkeley-split-4m-cost-free-speech-events-uc-office-president/">substantial security costs</a>.</p>
<p>I would argue that these are costs that a democratic society should be willing to pay. The question for individual campuses is: how best to divvy up those costs so that free speech can continue to flourish while not imposing too much of a financial or other burden on the university and its students?</p>
<h2>Charlottesville 2017: nothing to do with free speech</h2>
<p><strong>Clayton Rose, president of Bowdoin College</strong></p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227844/original/file-20180716-44094-19jzmb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clayton Rose, president of Bowdoin College.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.bowdoin.edu/president/biography/index.shtml">Bowdoin College</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Charlottesville 2017 had nothing to do with a free speech “balancing act.” What was on display there was the voice and the face of white nationalist Nazis and their fellow travelers. The ideologies of these people are despicable and have been used to rationalize some of the most heinous regimes the world has seen. White supremacists have the right to express their views, and in doing so the demonstrators starkly revealed their racism and anti-Semitism, which have no place in civilized society. We must continue to be vigilant about calling these people out. As <a href="https://www.brandeis.edu/legacyfund/bio.html">Justice Brandeis observed</a>, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”</p>
<p>The events of last summer have nothing to do with the opportunities and challenges of free speech on campus. There are critical issues that divide us as a society and that must be openly discussed on campuses across the country — issues like economic, political and social opportunity, immigration, the environment and privacy. Our students need to develop the skills and sensibility for thoughtful and respectful discourse on these divisive topics — something that has all but disappeared in our cable news society.</p>
<p>The twisted ideologies on view in Charlottesville last year play no part in the essential effort to ensure that this country’s great colleges and universities remain places to learn these skills — where students can test deeply held beliefs, examine ideas that might profoundly unsettle and may even offend, and where they can challenge each other and campus guests in ways that sharpen or change their thinking by engaging facts, data, analysis and reason.</p>
<p>The most important thing we can do as educators is to remain respectfully and persistently skeptical and to underscore that higher education and intellectual experience are more about the questions than the answers.</p>
<p>It is only through this engagement that our students, and ultimately the rest of us in American society, can best understand the issues and challenges embedded in the hardest, fiercest problems we face today. This is how we develop in our students the knowledge, intellectual skills, and emotional fortitude to confront the most challenging questions of our time to make our society and our world better.</p>
<h2>How to get beyond shouting at each other</h2>
<p><strong>Connie Ledoux Book, president of Elon University</strong></p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228244/original/file-20180718-142435-mwwsea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Connie Ledoux Book, president of Elon University.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.elon.edu/E-Net/Article/153975">Elon University</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Freedom of expression is fundamental to learning on our campuses and at the heart of a university’s existence. Protecting a student’s right to speak and another student’s right to disagree is an imperative. Every day, thousands of diverse ideas erupt in our classrooms and residence halls. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, however, formal instruction on how to exchange, consider and debate different perspectives <a href="https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/crucible/Crucible_508F.pdf">is missing at many universities,</a> according to a National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. </p>
<p>Learning to ride a bicycle is not intuitive. Nor is knowing how to conduct a civil dialogue. While a broadly educated student can become familiar with the ideas and theories driving differences in points of view, the practice of exchanging those ideas with each other is a set of skills that can and should be taught. </p>
<p>Civic skills matter for democracy. As <a href="http://web.apsanet.org/teachingcivicengagement/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/Teaching-Civic-Engagement-Across-the-Disciplines_opt.pdf#page=36">a recent study</a> by Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy and Higher Education showed, five college campuses where students turn out to vote at rates greater than historically predicted also had intentionally integrated civic engagement practices within the curriculum and running parallel to it. In other words, these campuses have infused civic engagement into the college experience as a way to prepare students for effective citizenship.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.apsanet.org/teachingcivicengagement/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/Teaching-Civic-Engagement-Across-the-Disciplines_opt.pdf#page=36">Four key teaching practices </a>were identified on these campuses as promoting successful civic participation:</p>
<ul>
<li>Faculty sought training to help them manage “hot” discussions with their students in the classroom.<br></li>
<li>Faculty built trust among students by building together well-defined standards for behaviors during class discussions, including encouraging dissent and managing conflict, and then enforcing those standards.</li>
<li>Diversity of backgrounds and ideologies among students was used as an asset in teaching</li>
<li>Professors often played “devil’s advocate” by introducing dissenting and diverse views when key perspectives were absent in discussions.</li>
</ul>
<p>If we are doing it right in higher education, students in their own self-discovery will become passionate, zealous and fierce about sharing ideas in hopes of making a difference in the world. Let’s make sure we have also taught them how to disagree: if Americans are only capable of shouting at each other, those of us in higher education will shoulder a part of the blame.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On the one-year anniversary of the tragedy in Charlottesville, we asked the presidents of Bowdoin, Elon and the University of Washington whether free speech should be treated differently on campus.Ana Mari Cauce, President, University of WashingtonClayton Rose, President , Bowdoin CollegeConnie Ledoux Book, President , Elon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/975212018-06-14T10:44:34Z2018-06-14T10:44:34ZFour campus free speech problems solved<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221810/original/file-20180605-119870-1so9pfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Free speech zones' and other efforts to limit free speech on campus are igniting controversies across the nation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/san-diego-usa-may-27-2016-428987545?src=IdWM5NHHB_oYn9qvDEW9Kg-1-0">Chad Zuber/www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Concerns about free speech in higher education have reached the point where at least 30 state legislatures have considered, and nearly a dozen – including Arizona and Virginia – have passed, <a href="https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/untangling-the-threads-2018-state-legislation-addressing-campus-speech-conc">laws to protect campus speech</a>. The concerns about campus free speech cluster around four problems: speech zones, speech codes, disinvitations and ideological biases.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Cp--4f0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scholar who has long written about intellectual freedom in education, reasoning and development</a>, I believe solutions exist that transcend the politics of the moment and promote free expression for all. As an extension of my scholarship, I have served as a board member and sometimes as president of the ACLU of Nebraska. I’m currently president of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska. This article, however, was not written on behalf of either organization.</p>
<p>As a professor – and now emeritus professor – of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln since 1977, I have been advocating intellectual freedom within – and outside – UNL for decades and continue to do so. The problems are general to all universities. Fortunately, so are the solutions. </p>
<h2>Shun ‘free speech zones’</h2>
<p>Colleges across the country have instituted “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/bill-to-prohibit-campus-free-speech-zones-introduced-in-u-s-senate/">free speech zones</a>.” The problem is these zones are generally small and speech everywhere else on campus is subject to administrative regulation.</p>
<p>The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has brought lawsuits against many colleges with restrictive speech zones, including <a href="https://www.thefire.org/victory-student-detained-for-passing-out-political-flyers-settles-lawsuit-with-illinois-college/">Joliet Junior College</a> in Illinois and <a href="https://www.thefire.org/court-rejects-motion-to-dismiss-student-lawsuit-targeting-los-angeles-pierce-colleges-tiny-free-speech-zone/">Pierce College</a> in California. It has also supported <a href="https://www.thefire.org/florida-becomes-ninth-state-to-ban-restrictive-campus-free-speech-zones/">state legislation</a> to clarify that, as a matter of First Amendment principle and precedent, the public areas of public college campuses are traditional public forums like streets and parks.</p>
<p>The ACLU for its part has <a href="https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus">historically advocated</a> for many years against free speech zones on the grounds that “an open society depends on liberal education, and the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech.” </p>
<p>With one in 10 universities today, <a href="https://www.thefire.org/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2018/">according to FIRE</a>, having instituted free speech zones, the ACLU has been busy protesting their existence as “a misguided step away from the historical role of universities” and calling for their abolition in letters to university leadership across the country, including on my own campus.</p>
<p>Instead of trying to restrict free speech to tiny areas, I suggest college and university leaders – in the spirit of the 1964 <a href="https://calisphere.org/exhibitions/43/the-free-speech-movement/">Berkeley Free Speech Movement</a> – start with the presumption of intellectual freedom across the campus. </p>
<h2>Challenge hateful speech with more speech</h2>
<p>FIRE has also examined student conduct codes and other speech-related policies at more than 400 colleges and universities. <a href="https://www.thefire.org/university-of-new-hampshire-earns-fires-top-rating-for-free-speech/">Only 40 institutions</a> presently meet its “green light” standard of conformity to First Amendment case law.</p>
<p>The usual justification for regulating offensive expression of various sorts is that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But as a matter of constitutional law, this is just plain wrong. There is <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/hate-9780190859121?cc=us&lang=en&">no such thing as “hate speech” in First Amendment law</a>, and thus no exception for it.</p>
<p>If hate speech cannot be censored, what can be done about it? The traditional civil libertarian response remains convincing: The solution for those who perceive a particular speaker’s words as hate speech or otherwise objectionable is to exercise their own First Amendment rights to challenge and refute bad ideas and provide better alternatives.</p>
<h2>Don’t disinvite or disrupt speakers</h2>
<p>Consider this multiple choice question: The proper response when an invited speaker is deemed racist, fascist or otherwise objectionable is to (a) get the invitation canceled; (b) disrupt the event so the speaker can’t be heard; (c) initiate or provoke violence; (d) foster counter-speech; or (e) all of the above. </p>
<p>Recent events on college campuses, including disruption at the <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/16/guest-lecture-free-speech-cuny-law-school-heckled">City University of New York</a> and violence at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html">Middlebury College</a>, might lead one to wonder how many choose (e) all of the above. But the correct answer here, too, I suggest, is the traditional civil libertarian solution: (d) foster counter-speech.</p>
<p>In my experience, campus speakers are usually academic experts invited by faculty or students to speak to classes or other academic audiences. For an administrator to rescind the invitation on the basis of ideological objections or outside pressures would be a major infringement on the academic freedom of all involved. It would also undermine the academic integrity of the institution.</p>
<p>Speakers may also be invited by student groups or administrators for debates, commencement ceremonies and other events. If some believe a mistake has been made, selection procedures may be re-examined before the next invitation. Once an invitation has been extended, however, to rescind it is impolite to the rejected speaker, casts doubt on the integrity of the institution and invites future challenges.</p>
<p>In very rare cases, such as research fraud, it may be justifiable to disinvite a speaker on the basis of new information. The proper response to a speaker with objectionable views, however, is to refute what needs to be refuted, protest what needs to be protested, and invite speakers with alternative views.</p>
<h2>Respect faculty and student rights</h2>
<p>Many have argued that universities are centers of <a href="https://www.nas.org/articles/yes_campus_indoctrination_is_real">liberal indoctrination and anti-conservative bias</a>. The claim may be exaggerated and the evidence anecdotal, but professors in many disciplines are indeed <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means">disproportionately liberal</a>, which may indeed influence the curriculum and classroom atmosphere.</p>
<p>Regardless of how prevalent the problem, the solution lies in basic nondiscrimination principles. As surely as we <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">must not discriminate</a> on the basis of race, sex or sexual orientation, we must also not discriminate on the basis of political, religious or other viewpoints.</p>
<p>Even if most faculty are liberal, they have a right to their political views. They must be hired and evaluated on the basis of academic qualifications such as expertise, teaching ability and research accomplishments without regard to their political, religious or other ideologies.</p>
<p>But faculty must serve all students without discrimination on the basis of race, sex or viewpoint. They must respect the academic freedom of students to be educated, rather than indoctrinated, including their right to formulate, express and discuss ideas of their own.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97521/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Moshman has been an activist for intellectual freedom in education since the 1980s. He served for more than 30 years on the Board of Directors of ACLU Nebraska, including four years as president. He has also served on the Board of Directors of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska since its founding in 1988, and is its president for 2018. Both organizations have criticized the state of intellectual freedom in educational institutions across Nebraska, including the University of Nebraska and several of its campuses, in past years and again in 2018. This article was written independently and is not intended to represent the view of any organization.</span></em></p>Though free speech on campus is often a divisive issue, solutions are not hard to find, a First Amendment scholar argues.David Moshman, Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-LincolnLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960542018-05-09T04:55:43Z2018-05-09T04:55:43ZWhat you need to know about the new free speech pledge for universities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217503/original/file-20180503-153891-1e3nnhi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTUyNTM3NzQ5MiwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNzc4MTY0MDg4IiwiayI6InBob3RvLzc3ODE2NDA4OC9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwiV3haZC9yQloxV2JkK3VDWVR0K1FuVDVzUGFJIl0%2Fshutterstock_778164088.jpg&pi=33421636&m=778164088&src=B5JtyNIqei2rgHvt62lNsw-1-15">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Universities may no longer be able to ban controversial speakers from giving talks on campus – those that continue to do so <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43989236">could face a fine</a>. The freedom to debate and discuss difficult topics should remain a central feature of university life, according to the universities minister, Sam Gyimah.</p>
<p>The new plans come after concerns over “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/peter-tatchell-racist-no-platform-controversy-silences-freedom-of-speech">no-platforming</a>” of <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-no-platforming-works--and-why-it-is-doomed-to-fail/">controversial speakers</a>, and the <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/no-platform-epidemic-not-right-wing-fantasy">censorship of certain viewpoints</a>, which have all led to mounting pressure for government intervention.</p>
<p>To tackle the issue, Gyimah <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-time-i-was-almost-censored-on-campus-dqkd7xgqp">has called for</a> a single clear set of guidelines for both students and institutions to replace the <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-universities-and-students-back-clearer-guidance-free-speech">“dizzying variety” of rules</a> about who can be invited to speak on university campuses and what they can say. </p>
<p>This is the first government intervention on free speech on campus for 30 years. And the new plans could see universities named and shamed or even fined if they <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/our-work-in-parliament/Documents/freedom-of-speech-on-campus.pdf">don’t uphold the rules of free speech</a>.</p>
<h2>Tentacles of bureaucracy</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-time-i-was-almost-censored-on-campus-dqkd7xgqp">Writing in The Times</a>, Gyimah echoed recent public concerns about the stifling of free speech on university campuses. Blaming what he referred to as a “murky” landscape with an array “of disjointed guidelines”. He noted how those “unseen and pernicious tentacles of bureaucracy can so often reach out and hold events back”. </p>
<p>Gyimah hopes that the construction of a set of clear guidelines will enhance the landscape of free speech within universities. This will also allow speakers to present their views without the threat of censorship or “shouting down”.</p>
<p>But Gyimah’s concerns over an increasingly bureaucratic university culture also reveal wider problems with the <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/hr-departments-are-pits-bureaucracy">business model</a> of higher education. Increased competition in the graduate job market, combined with rising costs to attend university, has caused a shift in the role of students. Once in the unique position to engage in intellectual curiosity, many young people now approach a university education as a consumer product. </p>
<p>This places <a href="http://time.com/3848947/dear-universities-there-should-be-no-safe-spaces-from-intellectual-thought/">pressure on administrators and academics</a> to deliver a particular university “experience” that fulfils the demands of the consumers themselves. That this phenomenon has led to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/mar/27/safe-spaces-used-to-inhibit-free-speech-on-campuses-inquiry-finds">issues of no-platforming and censorship</a>, then, is no surprise. </p>
<h2>Academic freedom</h2>
<p>This latest move by the universities minister signals official recognition of the issue of free speech on campus. The introduction of uniform regulations across universities in the UK may offer a welcome level of clarity when navigating such issues. </p>
<p>But, as was revealed in <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/freedom-of-speech-universities-report-17-19/">a recent report</a> by the parliamentary joint human rights committee, the potential for over-regulation to contribute to the “chilling” of free debate should not be ignored. If the government and universities really are committed to securing free speech on campus, difficult questions on the sources of these clashes must not be avoided. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217504/original/file-20180503-83693-19zeecv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Universities will be penalised if they allow students to shut down speeches.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-city-april-14-2015-269948186?src=i23NRytVekwkEQdt16NpEA-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ministers must also consider the broader problems suffered by academic freedom itself. This means avoiding <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-rankings-top-threat-snowflake-students-demands-a7516316.html">overgeneralised language regarding clashes</a> between the political right-wing and a so-called “snowflake” culture and instead actually listening to those from all corners of the debate. </p>
<p>Though the temptation to frame the debate in terms of the threat of “political correctness” remains ever present, this approach is both unhelpful to the furthering of free speech and unnecessarily politically partisan. </p>
<h2>Value of higher education</h2>
<p>As <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/05/03/universities-no-platform-controversial-speakers-will-face-government/">the first government intervention of its kind</a> since 1986 – when universities became subject to a duty to support freedom of speech – there is hope that the proposed guidance will go some way towards resolving current tensions. </p>
<p>It is believed that recommendations made by the newly formed <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/blog/Pages/Freedom-of-speech-and-the-Office-for-Students.aspx">Office of Students</a> will be considered as possible modes of regulation. But these rules will need to be clearly defined and made transparent, or else risk falling into an even more constrictive state of regulation. This will be no easy feat. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AK204zwaaDM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>What is needed is a broader approach to the problems of freedom of speech on campus. Providing clear guidance for invited speakers is only one part of the equation. Governments must also strive to ensure that those from all sections of society are given equal opportunity to access higher education. And that those voices are included in the social fabric of university life. </p>
<p>Safeguarding a commitment to academic freedom also requires making sure that academics themselves are adequately valued for both their teaching responsibilities and research contributions. This is important because taken as a symptom of a wider issue in universities today, the free speech debate cannot be separated from these broader concerns about the value of higher education itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96054/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Whitten receives funding from the Department for the Economy. </span></em></p>In new guidance, students and universities could be banned from censoring controversial speakers on campuses following the first ministerial intervention on free speech in 30 years.Suzanne Whitten, PhD Philosophy Candidate, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/959842018-05-07T10:42:16Z2018-05-07T10:42:16ZDon’t expect professors to get fired when they say something you don’t like<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217571/original/file-20180503-153881-4d8zcy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Public university professors enjoy great protections when it comes to free speech.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/communication-concept-person-open-mouth-voicing-374868469?src=8ylNhbr0qCrh4nAFSAtcgg-2-14">Lightspring/www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A college professor lashes out on social media with a caustic political opinion. Online commentators explode with outrage and demand firings. </p>
<p>Does the university stand behind the instructor and accept a reputational beating? It depends both on the law and the fortitude of campus administrators. </p>
<p>Fresno State University’s Randa Jarrar is the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fresno-professor-barbara-bush-20180424-story.html">latest</a> to incite condemnation with her stream of celebratory Twitter posts marking the April 17 passing of Barbara Bush. Jarrar denounced the former first lady as a “witch” and an “amazing racist.” For good measure, the English professor taunted her critics by boasting that tenure protected her from being fired.</p>
<p>Jarrar’s situation isn’t uncommon. Professors from <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/23/u-kansas-professor-suspended-after-anti-nra-tweet">Kansas</a> to <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/27/trinity-college-connecticut-puts-johnny-eric-williams-leave-over-controversial">Connecticut</a> have provoked online outcry with incendiary posts about touchy social or political topics. </p>
<p>What’s noteworthy is that Jarrar has toughed out the criticism and remained on the job. Social media firestorms often end professors’ careers.</p>
<p>Last year, a Drexel University political scientist <a href="http://www.phillyvoice.com/controversial-professor-resigns-drexel-university/">resigned</a> after a flippant tweet that stated all he wanted for Christmas was “white genocide.” The tweet followed other comments in which the professor expressed disgust with the military and called white people “inhuman” for mistreating minorities. </p>
<p>Around the same time, a visiting professor at the University of Tampa <a href="http://wlrn.org/post/university-tampa-professor-fired-over-hurricane-tweet">lost his job</a> after tweeting that Hurricane Harvey, which killed more than 100 people, was payback for Texas’ support of Republicans.</p>
<p>One difference is that, unlike Drexel or Tampa, Fresno State is a public university. And at public universities, the First Amendment limits the ability of supervisors to penalize distasteful speech.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gJRByGQAAAAJ&hl=en">researchers</a> with the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, we’ve spent months digging into the rights of public employees when they speak with the news media. While Jarrar was publishing directly and not through a journalistic intermediary, the same constitutional principles protect her speech and that of all state employees – within limits.</p>
<h2>The workplace and the First Amendment</h2>
<p>It’s well-established by decades of case law that the First Amendment prevents government agencies – including states that run many universities and community colleges – from restricting the content of citizens’ speech, or punishing them after the fact for what they say. When a private employer, including a private college, fires someone over a social media post, there’s no constitutional violation.</p>
<p>At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government has valid interests in being able to provide services efficiently. As a result, employee speech that interferes with workplace harmony can be restricted or even penalized with a firing.</p>
<p>So is a professor at a state-run college more of a citizen – or more of an employee?</p>
<p>In a 2006 case, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/547/410.html">the Supreme Court upheld disciplinary action</a> against a government employee who wrote a memo undermining his supervisor, a California prosecutor. The justices said employees give up their First Amendment protection when they speak “pursuant to official duties.”</p>
<p>But more recently, the Supreme Court backpedaled. In 2014, the justices unanimously <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-rules-public-employees-are-protected-from-retaliation-for-testimony/2014/06/19/cd9df368-f7bf-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html?utm_term=.075b5b512d1e">overturned</a> the firing of an Alabama community college employee who blew the whistle on misspending at his state agency. Speech doesn’t lose protection, the court ruled, just because it is about information learned on the job.</p>
<p>The First Amendment especially applies to comments about prominent political figures and political issues. To the relief of bloggers and talk show hosts everywhere, speech <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/mark">does not lose protection</a> merely because it is insulting or mean-spirited. So even uncivil name-calling about the Bush family is difficult for a state agency to restrict. </p>
<p>If Jarrar was tweeting as part of her job duties, she’d have no First Amendment protection; the speech would belong to her employer. But political commentary is probably beyond the job description for an English literature professor. So her tweets are entitled to at least some constitutional protection.</p>
<p>And the First Amendment may apply even more forcefully when the speaker is a college instructor.</p>
<h2>Do professors represent a ‘special’ class?</h2>
<p>Outside of higher education, it’s become <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/officers-fired-for-anti-black-lives-matter-social-media">common</a> to see public employees fired for caustic social media posts. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143264921/friendly-advice-for-teachers-beware-of-facebook">Teachers</a>, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article23616994.html">principals</a>, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/officer-racist-tweets-ape_n_7453458.html">police officers</a> and <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article89619567.html">firefighters</a> have all lost their jobs for thoughtless excesses – whether real or perceived – on Facebook or Twitter. </p>
<p>Even for employees of state or local government, legal challenges often fail. Employers can prevail by producing enough complaints to show that the speech upset workplace morale or undermined public trust. </p>
<p>But in higher education, academic freedom is a cherished value. The term refers to the latitude that college educators are given to explore provocative ideas in the classroom, even unorthodox ones.</p>
<p>In cases brought by professors in <a href="http://www.splc.org/blog/splc/2011/04/appeals-court-delivers-favorable-affirmation-of-college-faculty-free-expression-rights">North Carolina</a> and <a href="http://www.splc.org/blog/splc/2013/09/ninth-circuit-latest-to-exempt-publicly-employed-teachers-from-garcetti-speech-restrictions">Washington</a>, federal courts have given greater free speech protection to college faculty than ordinary government employees would enjoy.</p>
<p>Stephen Salaita, a professor of American Indian studies, <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/U-of-Illinois-Settles-the/234187">obtained an US$875,000 settlement</a> in a lawsuit against the University of Illinois, when his job offer was withdrawn following outrage over his Twitter posts criticizing Israel. Salaita’s case shows how limited a public university’s options are in responding to indecorous speech by faculty members, particularly posts made on personal time about political concerns. </p>
<h2>Tweet and counter-tweet</h2>
<p>Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis <a href="http://firstamendmentwatch.org/2018/01/27/history-speaks-brandeis-concurring-holmes-whitney-v-california-1927/">famously wrote</a> in 1927 that the proper response to “evil” speech is “more speech,” not suppression or punishment. Like all government executives, college presidents can freely voice disapproval of obnoxious speech to distance their institutions from it.</p>
<p>That’s just what Fresno State President Joseph I. Castro did. In informing the public that Jarrar wouldn’t be disciplined for her off-duty tweets, Castro <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/fresno-state-randa-jarrar-barbara-bush-twitter-amazing-racist-war-criminal-891194">disavowed</a> the speech as “contrary to the core values of our University.” Castro is also holding two <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education/article210186154.html">forums</a> to air public sentiments about the Jarrar controversy. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15934266528750676067&q=keyishian&hl=en&as_sdt=40006">described</a> college campuses as a “marketplace for ideas,” and the marketplace has largely <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-calpoly-racism-20180501-story.html">disdained</a> Jarrar’s choice of words. </p>
<p>Social media speech is easily avoided, and remarks like Jarrar’s quickly dissipate if ignored. If the marketplace greets the next professorial online rant with a yawn and a click of the “unfollow” button, then the message will fail to find an audience – and the market will have spoken.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite calls for their ouster, public university professors who utter offensive things enjoy free speech protection. But a scholar argues for another way to respond to what those professors say.Frank LoMonte, Director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, University of FloridaDavid Jadon, Law ClerkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/776092017-06-28T01:42:09Z2017-06-28T01:42:09ZNew legislation may make free speech on campus less free<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175734/original/file-20170626-3062-n7enr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Demonstrators gather in anticipation of controversial speaker Ann Coulter near the University of California, Berkeley campus, April 27, 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Around the country, state lawmakers have been talking about – and legislating – ways intended to protect free speech on college campuses.</p>
<p>The Wisconsin State Assembly, for example, recently <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/06/21/wisconsin-assembly-taking-up-campus-free-speech-bill/403267001/">passed a campus speech bill</a> that would require public colleges and universities to punish students who disrupt campus speakers. The legislation is now heading to the State Senate for consideration.</p>
<p>As a higher education law researcher and campus free speech supporter, I view some requirements in these new campus speech laws as positively reinforcing legal protections for student free speech. However, I believe language in several pending state bills, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/04/28/north-carolina-wisconsin-bills-would-mandate-punishment-campus-speech">including the punitive legislation proposed in Wisconsin</a>, does more to impede free speech than protect it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175722/original/file-20170626-29117-96swex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos was one of the chief sponsors of a bill that requires public universities in Wisconsin to discipline students who disrupt speeches and presentations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Scott Bauer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Free speech zones</h2>
<p>In an effort to keep campuses safe and avoid disruption, some universities have restricted student speech and expressive activity – such as handing out leaflets or gathering signatures for petitions – to special speech zones.</p>
<p>These “free speech zones” have been subject to <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-03-28/campus-free-speech-zones-face-new-round-of-scrutiny">criticism and legal challenges</a>. In one illustrative case, a federal court invalidated a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12043692981173000551&q=%22university+of+cincinnati%22+free+speech+zone+limited+public+forum&hl=en&as_sdt=3,25">University of Cincinnati policy</a> that limited student demonstrations, picketing and rallies to one small portion of campus.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not ruled definitively on the legality of designated student speech zones. Consequently, legal battles over their constitutionality continue, as shown by <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-essential-education-updates-southern-pierce-college-student-files-lawsuit-1490737382-htmlstory.html">pending litigation</a> involving a Los Angeles community college student who claims he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S. Constitution only in a designated campus speech zone.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175720/original/file-20170626-29070-tadw6j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Replicas of Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio face off in the free speech zone on the campus of the University of Colorado before the 2015 Republican presidential debate. Free speech zones are no longer permitted in Colorado.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/David Zalubowski</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some states have recently enacted laws that prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing such free speech zones against students. At least seven states have passed anti-speech zone laws: <a href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-education/2017/03/states-seek-to-scrap-free-speech-zones-219089">Virginia, Missouri, Arizona</a>, <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/free-speech-zones-abolished-on-colorado-campuses/">Colorado</a>, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/05/11/tennessee-free-speech-bill-signed-law">Tennessee</a>, <a href="https://le.utah.gov/%7E2017/bills/static/HB0054.html">Utah</a> and <a href="http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/17RS/SB17.htm">Kentucky</a>. </p>
<p>Public institutions in these states may impose reasonable rules to avoid disruption, but officials cannot relegate student free speech and expression to only small or remote areas on campus. Instead, they must permit free speech in most open campus locations, such as courtyards and sidewalks.</p>
<p>Along with the pending legislation in Wisconsin, which also would <a href="http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab299">ban speech zones</a>, <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article146828989.html">North Carolina</a>, <a href="http://michiganradio.org/post/committee-hearing-held-campus-free-speech-legislation">Michigan</a>, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2017-05-11/texas-senates-votes-to-bar-college-free-speech-zones">Texas</a> and <a href="http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2017/06/campus_free_speech_passes.html">Louisiana</a> are considering similar legislation. </p>
<p>Striking down these “free speech zones” seems a sensible way to promote student free speech: In my opinion, institutions shouldn’t seek to restrict students’ First Amendment speech rights to strict borders on campus.</p>
<h2>Punishing protesters</h2>
<p>If the Wisconsin bill passes in its current form, the state would do more than ban designated free speech zones. It would also become the first state requiring institutions to punish student protesters. The North Carolina House of Representatives has passed a similar <a href="http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2017&BillID=HB+527&submitButton=Go">bill</a>, now under review in the State Senate, but this legislation seems to leave institutions more <a href="http://www.wral.com/unc-officials-ok-with-revised-free-speech-bill/16662870/">discretion</a> over dealing with students disrupting speakers than the Wisconsin legislation.</p>
<p>Much of the push for campus speech bills has come from lawmakers who believe that college campuses are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/22/wisconsin-assembly-advances-bill-to-suspend-or-expel-students-who-disrupt-campus-speakers/?utm_term=.7cf4123fc999">hostile to conservative speakers</a>. They point to incidents such as those involving <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-free-speech/index.html">Ann Coulter</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/berkeley-milo-yiannopoulos-and-the-lessons-of-free-speech-72651?sr=1">Milo Yiannopoulos</a> at the University of California at Berkeley as indicative of an overall resistance to conservative speakers on campus.</p>
<p>Provisions in campus speech bills, including ones mandating penalties for students who disrupt speakers, can largely be <a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/05/05/527092506/states-consider-legislation-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus">traced</a> to <a href="http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/free-speech/campus-free-speech-a-legislative-proposal/">model legislation</a> from the Goldwater Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. The group aims to correct what it views as a left-leaning bias in American higher education regarding campus free speech.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175735/original/file-20170626-29085-te2hk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester is escorted out of commencement exercises during a speech by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at Bethune-Cookman University in Daytona Beach, Florida, May 10, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Raoux, File</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In my view, forcing colleges to take punitive action against all disruptive protesters is troublesome. Such a requirement would mean that institutions would be faced with devising overly cumbersome rules for when punishment should or should not occur. But what counts as a punishment-worthy disruption? </p>
<p>A more problematic outcome would be if free speech were <a href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/As-a-Free-Speech-Bill-Advances/240433">chilled</a>. Students might understandably refrain from speech and expressive activity based on fear of punishment, particularly if the rules around such punishment are necessarily vague and difficult to understand. </p>
<p>Based on such concerns, the <a href="https://www.thefire.org/">Foundation for Individual Rights in Education</a> – an influential group that promotes, among other things, student free speech in higher education – has <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/15/critics-proposed-legislation-first-amendment-rights-wisconsin-public-universities">come out against this particular requirement</a> in the Wisconsin bill. The American Civil Liberties Union has also <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/education/article148662214.html">expressed concern</a> over the similar provision under consideration in North Carolina.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>The Wisconsin bill is <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/06/21/wisconsin-assembly-taking-up-campus-free-speech-bill/403267001/">described by supporters</a> as intended to protect the right of campus speakers to be heard. However, it seeks to accomplish this goal in a way that undermines student free speech of all types.</p>
<p>Hopefully, lawmakers in Wisconsin and in other states considering legislation will stick to workable measures that actually promote – as opposed to hinder – campus free speech.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neal H. Hutchens does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New laws pending in Wisconsin and North Carolina would require public universities to punish students who disrupt campus speakers. But these laws would do more to hinder free speech than protect it.Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of MississippiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768402017-05-08T00:53:40Z2017-05-08T00:53:40ZCan we talk about free speech on campus?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168146/original/file-20170505-19116-14rrwdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students protested at UC Berkeley on both sides: in opposition to Ann Coulter and in support of free speech.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent cancellation of an appearance by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley resulted in <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-ann-coulter-protests-20170427-story.html">confrontations between protestors</a>. It’s the latest in a series of <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/21/auburn-berkeley-incidents-illustrate-how-difficult-it-public-colleges-bar-speakers">heated disputes</a> that have taken place involving controversial speakers on campus.</p>
<p>One of us is a researcher of higher education legal issues (Neal) and one is a senior administrator in higher education (Brandi). Together, we’re interested in how institutions facilitate free speech while also supporting students. </p>
<p>From our different perspectives, we see two closely connected questions arise: What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And what principles and educational values should guide university actions concerning free speech? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168162/original/file-20170505-19120-1wa812a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A student protest at the University of Minnesota targeted a mural that advocated for the building of a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/MuNQgQ">Fibonacci Blue / flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Key legal standards</h2>
<p>When it comes to the legal requirements for free speech on campus, a key initial consideration is whether an institution is public or private. </p>
<p>Public colleges and universities, as governmental institutions, are obligated to uphold <a href="https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#131">First Amendment</a> protections for free speech. In contrast, private institutions may choose to adopt speech policies similar to their public counterparts, but they <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/">aren’t subject to constitutional speech requirements</a>. California proves a notable exception: State law requires private secular colleges and universities to follow <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&sectionNum=94367.">First Amendment standards in relation to students</a>.</p>
<p>For those colleges that are subject to constitutional speech rules, what does this mean?</p>
<p>For starters, an institution does not have to make all places on campus, such as offices or libraries, available to speakers or protesters. Universities may also <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7188907281892258516&q=forum+institutions+not+required+same+access+for+non-students+as+students&hl=en&as_sdt=6,25">provide less campus access to individuals unaffiliated with the institution</a>, thus potentially limiting the presence on campus of activists or protesters who are not official members of the university community.</p>
<p>Regardless of these limitations on free speech, once an institution categorizes a campus space as accessible for students or permits its use for a specific purpose – such as musical or theatrical performances – campus officials <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums">must not favor particular views or messages</a> in granting access.</p>
<p>Some campus areas, such as plazas or courtyards, either by tradition or designation, constitute open places for speech and expression, including for the general public. Colleges and universities may impose reasonable rules to regulate the use of these kinds of open campus forums (e.g., restrictions on the length of the event, blocking roadways or the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2205493593660669069&q=ward+v+rock+against+racism&hl=en&as_sdt=6,25">use of amplification devices</a>). However, a guiding First Amendment principle is that institutions cannot impose restrictions based on the content of a speaker’s message.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168159/original/file-20170505-19135-1q9xmmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">With a long history of civil disobedience, California has laws in place to protect the free speech of all students – even those at secular private universities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/9jBFcL">Thomas Hawk / flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Free speech zones</h2>
<p>A central point of conflict over student speech and activism involves <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-us--campus-free-speech-zones-20170328-story.html">rules at some institutions</a> that restrict student speech and related activities (such as protests, distributing fliers or petition gathering) to specified areas or zones on campus. </p>
<p>Students have argued that such “free speech zones” are overly restrictive and violate the First Amendment. For instance, a community college student in Los Angeles alleges in a current lawsuit that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S Constitution <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-essential-education-updates-southern-pierce-college-student-files-lawsuit-1490737382-htmlstory.html">only in a designated free speech zone</a>. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado (<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/free-speech-zones-abolished-on-colorado-campuses/">as of this April</a>) have legislation that prohibits public institutions from enforcing such zones. At least six other states <a href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-education/2017/03/states-seek-to-scrap-free-speech-zones-219089">are considering</a> similar laws.</p>
<p>In our view, legislative and litigation efforts may curtail the use of designated free speech zones for students in much of public higher education. In the meantime, increasing resistance could be enough to prompt many institutions to voluntarily end their use.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168155/original/file-20170505-19112-1a15e20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Replicas of Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio face off in the free speech zone on the campus of the University of Colorado before the 2015 Republican presidential debate. Free speech zones are no longer permitted in Colorado.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/David Zalubowski</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beyond legal requirements</h2>
<p>While legal compliance is certainly an important factor in shaping policy and practice around free speech, campus leaders should perhaps have a different consideration foremost on their minds: namely, the institutional mission of education. </p>
<p>Most students arrive on our nation’s campuses to <a href="https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf">acquire a degree, discover who they are and determine what they want to be</a>. Students grow in myriad ways – <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118462688.html#">cognitively, morally and psychosocially</a> – while in college.</p>
<p>This personal development cannot fully take place without <a href="https://theconversation.com/helping-student-activists-move-past-us-vs-them-76838">exposure to opposing views</a>. To that end, students should be encouraged to <a href="https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/plea-civil-discourse-needed-academys-leadership">express themselves civilly</a>, listen to critiques of their ideas and think deeply about their convictions. Then, in response, students can express themselves again in light of new and opposing ideas.</p>
<p>This process of engagement, productive discourse and critical reflection can <a href="https://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf">create tension and conflict</a> for many. The reality is that protected free speech is <a href="https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/16/05/safe-space-vs-free-speech">not always viewed as good or productive speech</a> by all members of the campus community.</p>
<p>However, rather than labeling students as <a href="http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2016/12/04/who-you-calling-snowflake/">fragile “snowflakes”</a> or pressuring institutions to <a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/first-amendment-advocates-give-republican-campus-speech-bill-mixed-reviews/article_f5c168d8-28f0-5b0e-8ee8-f12ff38b3731.html">punish students who wish to challenge campus speakers</a>, in our view, there’s a better approach: Why not take seriously students’ objections to controversial speakers – <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-gillman-free-speech-on-campus-20160331-story.html">support them and engage with them</a> on how to reconcile their concerns and institutional commitments to free speech? </p>
<p>Free speech issues on campus are often messy and can make both students and campus officials uneasy. But discomfort also presents an opportunity for growth. We believe that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster debate and to help students gain experience in processing and responding to messages they find objectionable. </p>
<p>And so, when controversies arise, campus officials – at times stretching their own comfort zones around issues of student speech and activism – can embrace the educational opportunities they present.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76840/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And, beyond legal requirements, what is a school’s obligation to protect – or limit – free speech?Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of MississippiBrandi Hephner LaBanc, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, University of MississippiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768492017-05-03T01:13:53Z2017-05-03T01:13:53ZWhat was the protest group Students for a Democratic Society? 5 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167378/original/file-20170501-17287-1r3i3jm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students for a Democratic Society was the largest – and arguably most successful – student activist organization in U.S. history.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AVietnamdem.jpg">S.Sgt. Albert R. Simpson, Department of Defense / via Wikimedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: Recent events have brought student activism back into the spotlight. No student activist organization in U.S. history has matched the scope and influence of <a href="https://search.freedomarchives.org/search.php?view_collection=12">Students for a Democratic Society</a> (SDS), the national movement of the 1960s. We asked Todd Gitlin, former president of SDS (1963-1964), professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, and author of <a href="http://www.randomhousebooks.com/books/60551/">The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage</a> for his perspective on this renowned organization and the state of student protest today.</em></p>
<h2>1. What were the goals of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) when it started?</h2>
<p>SDS wanted <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07393140903492118">participatory democracy</a> – a public committed to making the decisions that affect their own lives, with institutions to make this possible. Its members saw an American citizenry with no influence over the nuclear arms race or, closer to home, authoritarian university administrations.</p>
<p>The organization favored direct action to oppose “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0x1eAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA148">white supremacy</a>” and “<a href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/sds_wuo/sds_documents/paul_potter.html">imperial war</a>,” and to achieve <a href="http://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antivietnamwar/files/original/92b384e1787664c748a39cb196c18f84.pdf">civil rights</a> and the <a href="http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4k4003k7">radical reconstruction of economic life</a> (i.e., the redistribution of money into the hands of African-Americans in order to fight racism). SDS was increasingly suspicious of established authorities and <a href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/Care-Feeding-Power-Structures.pdf">looked askance at corporate power</a>. But there was no single political doctrine; for most of its existence (1962-69), <a href="http://www.randomhousebooks.com/books/60551/">SDS was an amalgam</a> of left-liberal, socialist, anarchist and increasingly Marxist currents and tendencies.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167395/original/file-20170501-17319-adq3mi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several hundred people affiliated with the SDS race through the Los Angeles Civic Center in a 1968 demonstration against the Vietnam war.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-CA-USA-APHS445390-Vietnam-War-Protest/1c2b4068c1464b41af43a0ea185fed4b/7/0">AP Photo/Harold Filan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From 1965 on, it was focused chiefly on <a href="https://freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/DOC30_scans/30.sds.calltostudents.marchonwashington.pdf">opposing the Vietnam war</a>. After 1967, SDS became partial to confrontational tactics and increasingly sympathetic to one or another idea of a Marxist-Leninist revolution.</p>
<h2>2. How did SDS grow so quickly, from fewer than 1,000 members in 1962 to as many as <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zQHMCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT579">100,000</a> in 1969?</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167394/original/file-20170501-17319-ulnvv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=942&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tom Hayden, president of SDS from 1962 to 1963.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-California-Unite-/acd9a027dce6da11af9f0014c2589dfb/62/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The organization was launched with a stirring manifesto, the <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Port_Huron_Statement">Port Huron Statement</a>, and a leadership that was passionate, visionary, energetic, stylish and thoughtful.</p>
<p>Unlike most left-wing radicals and manifestos of the time, the Port Huron Statement was forthright and not riddled with jargon, thus its opening sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>SDS, in language and spirit, spoke to a widely felt need for a <a href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/NewLeftNotes-vol1-no01.pdf">New Left</a> that was free of the dogmas about “class struggle” and a “<a href="https://socialistworker.org/2012/07/20/what-is-a-vanguard-party">vanguard party</a>” that prevailed in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.</p>
<p>Its growth was helped along by a structure that, for many years, was flexible enough to encompass diverse orientations and styles of activism. Its volcanic growth after the 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War was made possible by its combination of zealous idealism and pragmatic activity that made sense to students – protests, demonstrations, sit-ins and marches.</p>
<h2>3. Why did the SDS effectively dissolve in 1969? Were the Weathermen (the militant radical faction of SDS) to blame?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167375/original/file-20170501-17313-14hbfix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Poster from the 1969 Days of Rage demonstrations, organized by the Weathermen faction of SDS.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/sds_wuo/images/sds_bring_the_war_home.jpg">SDS-1960s.org</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Under the pressure of the Vietnam War and black militancy in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, SDS’ leadership factions adopted fantastical ideas, believing they were living in a revolutionary moment. The Weathermen were the most ferocious, dogmatic and reckless of the factions. Inspired by <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/1123-the-way-the-wind-blew">Latin American, Southeast Asian and Chinese revolutionaries</a>, but heedless of American realities, they thought that by stoking up violent confrontations, they could “<a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520241190">bring the war home</a>” – force the U.S. government out of Vietnam to deal with a violent domestic revolt.</p>
<p>On <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/bomb-detonates-greenwich-village-1970-article-1.2136142">March 6, 1970</a>, a dynamite bomb they were building in New York City – intended to blow up hundreds of soldiers and their dates at a dance that evening – went off in their own hands, killing three of their own number. The Weather Underground (as the faction now called itself) went on to bomb <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings">dozens of government and corporate targets</a> over the next few years, but the group was incapable of leading a larger movement: Though there were no further casualties after the 1970 explosion, the vast majority of SDS’ members were put off by the Weatherman violence. As the Vietnam War came to an end, no student radical organization remained.</p>
<h2>4. What is the chief legacy of SDS?</h2>
<p>SDS tried many tactics in its effort to catalyze a national radical movement. It was multi-issue in a time when single-issue movements had proliferated: hence, the SDS slogan “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=RQ6xALay8CQC&pg=PA21">the issues are interrelated</a>.” With community organizing projects, it tried to create an <a href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/Interracial-Movement-Poor.pdf">interracial coalition of the poor</a>; it launched civil disobedience against corporations like the <a href="http://africanactivist.msu.edu/image.php?objectid=32-131-179">Chase Manhattan Bank</a>, which was seen to be supporting the South African apartheid regime; it helped launch the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.00060">most effective antiwar movement in history</a>; it incarnated a generational spirit that was both visionary and practical.</p>
<p>SDS also engendered <a href="http://www.sds-1960s.org/sds_wuo/nln_iwd_1969/images/nln_iwd_1969_04.jpg">second-wave feminism</a>, though sometimes <a href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6916/">in a paradoxical fashion</a>. Many female members felt both empowered and thwarted – they gained skills and experience in organizing, but were angered by their second-class status in the organization.</p>
<p>But SDS’s confrontational tendencies from 1967 onward bitterly alienated much of its potential political base. In my view, the group’s romanticism toward the Cuban, Vietnamese, and Chinese revolutions – and its infatuation with the paramilitary Black Panther party – flooded out its common sense and intellectual integrity.</p>
<h2>5. How has campus protest changed since the days of SDS?</h2>
<p>Many changes that SDS campaigned for came to pass. Student life loosened up and became less authoritarian. In the decades since, students have taken on issues that were not raised – or even recognized – 50 years ago: <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032017/divestment-harvard-students-climate-change">climate change</a>, <a href="https://newsone.com/3458645/students-protest-rape-brock-turner-standford-graduation/">sexual violence</a> and <a href="https://www.bu.edu/today/2016/black-lives-matter-protest/">racial subordination</a> through the criminal justice system. On the other hand, campus protest is dominated by single issues again, as it was in the period before SDS. Much of the current issue-politics rests on an assumption that racial, gender or sexual identity automatically dictates the goals of student activism.</p>
<p>I also believe that student protest has become far more modest in its ambitions. It has abandoned extreme revolutionary delusions, but at some expense. It has failed to build a tradition that’s serious about winning power: Students are content to protest rather than work toward building political majorities and trying to win concrete results.</p>
<p>I feel that student protest today often confines itself within the campus and fails to sustain organizing outside. As the right threw itself into electoral politics, student activists largely dismissed the need to compete. As a result, students of the left face the most hostile political environment in modern times.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: For analysis of other issues on campus protest, see our entire series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/campus-protest-38346">student protest</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76849/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Todd Gitlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Student protest has been in the political spotlight since Trump’s election. Todd Gitlin, former president of Students for a Democratic Society, shares his perspective on protest in the 60s and now.Todd Gitlin, Professor of Journalism and Sociology, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.