Free Speech on Campus — A Thought

The following is a comment of mine on the First Amendment and educational environments in America. It is taken from a discussion board in a course on Legal Aspects of Higher Education. My feelings on the subject have been ruminating since well before the beginning of this class, but have been made clearer to me in the light of recent events.

-----

From my instructor:

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords individuals the rights to 'freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the court ruled that students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' This discussion will focus on the First Amendment rights of students on college campuses and college or university speech codes that have been informed by judicial interpretation of this topic.

"Some court cases involving freedom of expression involve forms of hate speech. These cases have been associated with state statutes or city ordinances related to hate speech activities, or with college or university speech codes. At this time, no case involving campus hate speech has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases in the lower courts have struck down campus hate speech regulations due to policies being unconstitutionally overbroad (limiting students' rights to freedom of expression) or unconstitutionally vague, such as the phrase in one campus regulation that prohibited, 'discriminatory comments, epithets, or other expressive behavior.'

"Please respond to the following questions in your original post:

1. What are some concerns that you have about determining the boundaries for students' rights to exercise their freedom of expression on campus through speech, print, or assembly?

2. If you were a university administrator, what are some components you would include in a campus speech policy in order to protect students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression while also prohibiting targeted harassment or threats, or forms of hate speech?"

-----

1. Concerns I have for determining the boundaries for student expression by speech, press and assembly are based in the typically subjective interpretations of what distinguishes healthy expressions and unhealthy ones.

An opinion being found unpopular, or even unfavorable by a majority doesn't dictate what should and shouldn't be allowed. However, there are certain boundaries that are clear. Calling for violence is inappropriate. I believe the only exception is when people ought to be organized against a clear military threat, such as in the case of the American colonists and the British Crown in the 18th century following the publishing of the Declaration of Independence.

I'm increasingly concerned with the perception, perhaps driven by social media, that one's beliefs and views are part of some greater struggle which has consequences equal to or surpassing the military necessity referenced above—that there is no way for people on both "sides" of an issue to have full and free access to the future. Some seem to promote a worldview that of necessity eliminates the thinking that defines the "other side" of every issue. This definition, though, usually comes from stereotyping and generalizing on the part of the one making the call on what is said and done by this "other side". People are rarely allowed to speak for themselves anymore. Rather, most interactions are based on labels or other designations such as being part of a group, instead of actually getting to know an individual with whom we may prematurely assume to disagree.

It seems that some identity politicians have established arenas where any questioning of ideas can be labeled as "hate speech," and where discussion of certain topics is unapproachable. This taboo mentality is usually out of fear, and not from a genuine desire to protect people from harm. Discomfort is too often decried as indicating an unacceptable level of disdain.

My concerns also include the opposite end of this spectrum, which makes it okay (in some minds) to express the deepest disdain for people, based on the fact of their holding to one certain idea or another.

-----

2. If I were a university administrator, I'd seek to establish campus policies that welcome discussion of ideas, but limit discussion of people. My thoughts are summarized by being content-based and idea-driven in pursuing free speech on campus.

Ideas should be evaluated fairly and rigorously. People should not be evaluated based on belief in any principle or idea. Judgments of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr called "content of character" can be separated from the question of whether people espouse "good" or "bad" ideas.

For example, I admire Harry Truman and consider him to be an effective leader. He displayed integrity in his words and actions. I aspire to be like him in my own pursuit of leadership qualities, even though some of his decisions do not reflect my personal beliefs.

Respecting the inherent value of people, regardless of what they believe or do not believe (their ideas), is always required.

Freedom of expression does not allow for threats of violence or other intimidation targeted at an individual or a group.

Speech, writing, and peaceful assemblies which seek to persuade should be by means that demonstrate the superiority of the idea on its own merit, and divorced of any citations of affiliation or endorsement by people.

See also:

The Truth of the Matter, by the Author

Contact and the Pursuit of Truth, by the Author

Taking His Name, by the Author

Road to Jericho, by the Author

Keep Your Eyes On the Prize, by the Author

Righteous Judgments, by the Author

Charity Never Faileth, by the Author

Veils of Unbelief, by the Author

Lift, by the Author

Forgive, by the Author

A Thought on Value, by the Author

In the Service of Your God, by the Author