The Forgotten Duty: Free Speech in Academia

In an editorial I wrote for my school’s paper, and which was published on the website of the First Amendment Center as well as on this site, I wrote that “America has succeeded in the past — and will only continue to succeed in the future — not because our weapons were better or our spirit was stronger. It was because of our freedoms, it was because of our thoughts.” That statement is perhaps most true on college campuses, which should stand as sturdy lighthouses guiding free thought and intellectual debate in the sea of uncertainty. It is an affront to this image for schools to infringe on their students’ First Amendment rights, but naïve to think that such actions do not occur.
Examples of these usurpations are far to common. Many universities have “speech codes” which regulate what a student may think. The University of Mississippi’s specifies that all “offensive” language should be reported to the campus police force. Davidson’s code is another shiner, banning such innocent things as inquiries about dating. Kansas State bans “facial expressions.” Inspired by the film about speech codes FIRE offers on its website, I looked into the policies of schools I wish to apply to. One college bans “unwanted nicknames.” Another has rules against “personal gifts” and something called “elevator eyes.” I was shocked to find so many cases of free speech violations at universities I am applying to. Nor are students the only ones subjected to unfair “codes.” Educators who should challenge students to improve upon their intellectual curiosity are often punished for voicing their opinions. FIRE’s database is sadly filled to the brim with such stories, from the DePaul professor who was fired for an argument he had with a student to the SUNY Fredonia professor who suffered for merely expressing a view, it is clear that free speech is limited for school employees just as it is for students.
As FIRE indicates, many schools mistakenly read a “right not to be offended” between the lines of the First Amendment which simply does not exist. In 2003, the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education released a statement arguing against such codes. “Harassment,” the Department of Education ruled, does not include “views, words, symbols or thoughts.”
The fact that many universities miss is that the real world does not have a “speech code.” Society thrives on healthy debate. During the course of the debate, people will become offended, it is inevitable. The correct response to this situation is not for a university to coddle the potentially offended party. The university’s job is to make sure that the offended party is intellectually prepared to enter the debate. We cannot have a functioning democracy if we have a generation of students brought up afraid to offend their fellows, and unaccustomed to hearing unpopular or potentially offensive speech. FIRE’s campaign against speech codes is not just a defense of the right to say whatever one wishes. FIRE is fighting for universities to resume their duty of preparing students to become good citizens.
Valdosta State University is another battleground in the war defending freedom in academia. The school limits constitutional rights to Orwellian “free speech zones.” To think, most people were under the mistaken assumption that the entire country was a “free speech zone.” Valdosta State students were guaranteed their First Amendment rights -on an incredibly small patch of land, open only two hours a day. Lawyer Robert Corn-Revere was right when he said that “no responsible public official could possibly have gone overboard” in the way that Valdosta’s administration did. Valdosta’s administration was behaving in a manner which was anything but “responsible.”
Enter Thomas Hayden Barnes. Barnes, a certified paramedic, probably does not fit anyone’s definition of a radical. He simply was a student concerned with his school’s planned parking centers. Barnes committed what was -in Valdosta’s eyes- an unforgivable sin: he exercised his rights. He contacted officials, wrote a letter to the school’s paper, and distributed leaflets. In doing so, he raised the ire of his school’s administration, and a dispute about parking transformed into a fight for free speech.
Barnes recalls a school official, Ronald M. Zaccari feeling “attacked” by his advocacy, and of this official’s attempts at intimidation. It turns out, however, that not only would Barnes not be intimidated, he would increase his “attacks,” this time with a particularly nasty weapon: a collage. He was subsequently expelled. In his expulsion letter, Barnes was labeled a “clear and present danger” to Valdosta State. Barnes, with the help of FIRE, fought Valdosta’s unfair punishment. Valdosta reversed its decision and allowed Barnes the opportunity to attend courses again. However, as Greg Lukianoff of Fire points out, the damage has been done. “Gross abuses like these send a chilling message to students that they open their mouth and they express their opinion at their peril.”
It is little wonder, faced with stories like these, that a majority of young people do not know what freedoms are guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is sad to hear that polls indicate that most young people feel it is alright to silence opinions which are unpopular, but it is not unbelievable. After all, if Valdosta State’s “free speech zones” and or the University of Mississippi’s banning of “offensive” language are any indication, this is the behavior which they are being taught. The United States faces a sad fate if our citizens do not relearn the importance of free speech. It is the duty of our educational systems to instill in their students a love for the rights which make our nation great. If a school realistically wants its students to learn the importance of free speech, it cannot afford to restrict the speech of its students. Until universities realize this, it is up to agencies like FIRE to defend academic freedom.