Free speech and the tax code are two topics not generally associated with each other. When it comes to university speech codes, however, the two are more related than one might think. That’s why the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee held its first 2016 hearing on protecting free speech on college campuses on Wednesday.
The hearing featured testimony from students, professors, and a free speech advocate about how universities are using the tax code as justification to clamp down on student speech. Many colleges and universities are classified as 501(c)(3) groups, making their endowments and donations to the school tax-exempt.
“Unfortunately, many other schools continue to wrongly invoke their 501(c)(3) status to stifle political speech on campus, especially during election years,” said Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican. “But let’s get something straight: Section 501(c)(3) does not require schools to prohibit student political activity on campus.”
However, according to the two students who testified to the panel, that is exactly what schools are attempting to do.
Alex Atkins, a second-year law student at Georgetown, supports Bernie Sanders’ campaign for president. He and some friends attempted to form a group on campus to increase student participation in the election and share their enthusiasm for the Vermont senator. They weren’t asking for much from the school; primarily a table to advertise their group in a portion of the student union where clubs frequently distribute promotional materials.
However, the Office of Student Life denied the group’s request for a table in the student union, saying it was a violation of “policy.” The group was forced to, as Atkins put it “unofficially table” in the cafeteria, where fewer students saw their materials.
Despite attending classes at the university, the students were told that they may not use any university resources, including space, lest the school be found in violation of 501(c)(3) policies. Atkins, a self-described “budding lawyer,” repeatedly asked the school for a clarification of policy, but never received an adequate response. Instead, he was forced to invoke the assistance of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group protecting student rights, to try to force the school to give his group a table.
Such speech policies come at a cost—sometimes in time, sometimes in influence or money.
“Changes cannot undo the nearly six months that we’ve lost,” said Atkins.
His story was akin to that of Joshua Zuckerman, a Princeton student who faced resistance when trying to form a group to foster discussion on campus. While the policies in question refer to taxes, their impact affects the type and quality of education students receive.
Princeton professor Robert P. George spoke more broadly about what education would look like at what he called “PC University,” presenting such a dystopia as a place where the project of education itself was impeded.
“Underlying culture matters,” he said. “To educate a student, you need to challenge that student, challenge students on the other side and encourage them to challenge you and create what philosophers call a dialectic.”
To maintain their tax-exempt status, schools cannot be seen to act as political groups. However, those that receive state funding are barred by the First Amendment from infringing on the political speech of their students.
Several speakers at the hearing sought to clarify the difference between the university and its students. According to the IRS, a student can only be seen as an agent of the university in very rare circumstances. The policy is primarily intended to apply to senior school administrators who must make clear when giving public statements if the opinions they share are personal or intended to reflect university policy.
Right now, however, the wording of the policy makes it unclear to some schools what is and isn’t allowed. At the end of the session, while problematic incidents had been raised and discussed, no solution was proposed.
“As long as the IRS governance is ambiguous,” said FIRE’s Catherine Sevcenko, “[the abuse of speech] will continue.”
This article has been corrected.
