The Department of Justice hosted a daylong forum Monday on the state of free speech in higher education. Attorney General Jeff Sessions kicked off the Constitution Day festivities by stating that “freedom of speech and thought has become most under attack on the college campuses.”
Sessions touted the DOJ’s involvement in free speech cases, but also focused on the “culture” around free speech.
“Politics, ideology, passion, and power” have been given consideration over the “principle” of free speech, Sessions said of those leading higher education.
The event also included panels of lawyers and academics, and a keynote address from Nadine Strossen, a New York Law School professor and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union. Most speakers seemed to agree that the state of free speech on campus is in some sort of upheaval, but whether or not it is a full-blown crisis was debated and solutions to the potential crisis were lacking.
In particular, panelist Lee Tyner, who serves as general counsel of Texas Christian University, seemed to claim that free speech is actually better off now on campus than in years past. Tyner cited studies which show college graduates have a greater appreciation for free speech than non-college graduates.
Tyner painted university systems as a victim of contradicting laws, explaining that universities face challenges managing and protecting offensive speech while also protecting students and faculty.
“The university must pick its poison. … [It’s] an impossible task to fulfill one duty without breaching the other,” said Tyner.
Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pushed back on Tyner, stating that universities no longer deal in the persuasion of ideas but have shifted to the coercion of shutting out ideas entirely.
Professors Amy Wax and Heather Heying shared their own horror stories from their time spent in academia.
“Customarily, universities have been dedicated to cultivating the best in our culture… but now the academy has been hijacked by political objectives,” stated Wax. “The advancement of so-called social justice, diversity, equity…”
Heying gave testimony to what happened at Evergreen when she and her husband refused to participate in a “No Whites Allowed” day, which they explain in length here at the Washington Examiner.
“You will not, probably, survive if your institution doesn’t have your back,” Heying ultimately stated.
She believes the “authoritarian Left” is becoming the “dominant … status quo, it’s becoming the orthodoxy.” And Heying warns it’s extending beyond campuses. “We’re seeing … this emerge out in the world into courts, into Google, into Starbucks,” she stated.
Despite the red flags and the fear that censorship may soon extend beyond campus life, participants had few recommendations on how to solve the problem.
Wax suggested the answer lies in part with donors and alumni taking a more active role.
“I have a fantasy that not a penny more will be given to Ivy League institutions,” Wax exclaimed.
Wax also thinks the federal government shouldn’t be involved in supporting the humanities and social sciences in their current form, calling them “wildly lopsided in their approach.”
“Maybe it’s time to get out of the business in supporting these institutions until there’s more balance in them,” Wax suggested.
Heying suggested institutions adopt something similar to the Chicago Statement, a set of principles initially adopted by the University of Chicago in 2014, which recommitted the institution to free speech and academic inquiry.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sat down with Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., asking him about congressional solutions to the problems discussed through the day. Rosenstein specifically asked if colleges should ban trigger warnings, abandon speech codes, and teach students how to engage differing viewpoints.
Alexander believes the federal government “should not pass a law defining what a speech code should be or shouldn’t be,” preferring to leave it to the courts to interpret the First Amendment. He puts most of the responsibility on individual colleges to rethink their approach to speech on campus.
“You have to have ownership in this, campus by campus,” he stated.
Alexander agreed that a system like the Chicago principles would help guide a university, but they must be “adopted from the bottom up.” He also suggested universities recruit students and speakers with diverse points of view, just as they would recruit for other types of diversity. Lastly, he suggested the Department of Justice better educate college and university presidents on the legal ramifications surrounding free speech through forums convened by higher education leaders. These forums for presidents and trustees “would at least equip” university administrators in “knowing what to do.”
All in all, most of the solutions presented required universities to initiate and spearhead meaningful change, and that is precisely why nothing will change. Colleges are not interested in protecting speech as much as they are concerned with teaching the values of social justice.
Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather Mac Donald pointed out that “the [original] essence of education is… cramming as much knowledge into the empty noggins of students [as possible]…” but that universities no longer seek to teach core truths.
“The reason people call for censorship of speech is because they don’t truly believe that the fundamental job of the university is to teach core truths,” said Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville associate professor of religion and public life at the University of Notre Dame.
“For better or worse the academy … must decide what ideas meet its standard, and belong in the marketplace” stated Wax. Yet she continued, “balanced judgment is what’s missing today in today’s highly politicized atmosphere.”
Schools have lost sight of their original goals to educate students on fundamental truths, and there’s no reason to believe they will right themselves anytime soon.
