It seems that Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has a bee in his green beret over Kent State University’s decision to invite Jane Fonda to speak at the 50th commemoration of the Kent State massacre — the killing of four unarmed anti-war protesters by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970.
LaRose objects to the invitation as a veteran on the grounds that Fonda “betrayed our service members.” Fonda, a prominent anti-war activist in the 1960s and ’70s, was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. For her part, Fonda claims she was manipulated by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes. The photograph led to widespread resentment among the military and the derisive nickname “Hanoi Jane.”
There’s a baffling and sad irony to LaRose’s demand. The Kent State massacre occurred in the historical context of widespread nationwide government attempts to stifle dissent and anti-war speech in particular. Then-Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes had sought to keep communist speakers off-campus and railed against “dissident groups” the day before the shooting. University officials tried to prohibit the protest. The deaths of the Kent State protesters are directly and inextricably linked to government attempts to silence anti-war dissent, and demanding that a dissenter be disinvited to speak at the commemoration of the tragedy is a master class in missing the point.
During my tenure at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, my colleagues and I cataloged hundreds of attempts to prevent individuals from speaking on campus because they had taken some position that offended a segment of the community. When those “disinvitation” attempts came from within the campus community, they gave us useful insight into trends regarding free speech and the willingness of students to hear (or let others hear) from people with whom they have fundamental disagreements.
But, while I saw troubling trends in the attempts to constrain the marketplace of ideas on campus, it was often even more galling when disinvitation attempts came from off-campus sources with no good reason to involve themselves with who speaks on campus. Doubly so when they came from meddling politicians trying to score partisan points. Perhaps even triply so when said politician’s own party is so concerned about the free exchange of ideas on campus that it introduced a bill about it.
Indeed, I suspect LaRose would not look kindly on demands that a university rescind a speaking invitation were the speaker and topic different.
LaRose argues that he supports free speech — he just doesn’t want the university’s funds or imprimatur attached to Fonda’s speech. But that’s a disingenuous argument. As I’ve argued before, when universities invite and fund a diverse set of speakers that they believe have something important to add to conversations, it enhances the exchange of ideas by providing differing perspectives. It does not commit the university to a viewpoint.
Whether you agree with her or not, Fonda was a prominent anti-war activist, and she has a unique perspective on the issues of the time. If she cannot be invited, who could be? A discussion featuring members of the National Guard or government officials could just as easily be declared offensive to the family, friends, and supporters of the students who were killed. What hope would there be for an insightful conversation about real issues if every speaker is to be subjected to a test that asks, “Does this offend someone?” Not much hope at all.
Of course, the university is not required to invite anyone. As a matter of First Amendment law, Kent State could bow to pressure and rescind Fonda’s invitation (subject to contractual issues). As a matter of principle and adherence to the ideals of higher education, it must not.
Maybe state officials should refrain from calling for a dissenter to be disinvited from an event commemorating the deaths of protesters, given the historical context. Jane Fonda may have sat on a gun, but at least she never used one to mow down student protesters on a college campus.
Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) is an attorney specializing in First Amendment law and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.
