On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order intended to force colleges “to support free speech if they want [national government grants for] federal research.” The move comes on the heels of an act of politically motivated violence at the University of California, Berkeley, last month, where a conservative activist was punched and verbally harassed.
Just more than a year ago, as a freshman at Berkeley, I found myself dismayed by the spiraling state of intellectual discourse which I witnessed at my own university, the self-proclaimed “birthplace of the Free Speech Movement,” as well as at colleges around the country. In December 2017, I wrote an opinion piece urging college students and administrators to safeguard everybody’s right to be heard, and to combat “hate speech” with logic and eloquence. That is to say, I am the first person to applaud Trump’s decision to address the hot button issue of free speech on campus.
However, the reality of Trump’s record on free speech stands in contrast to the image of a staunch defender of First Amendment rights that he purported to be on Thursday. In November 2016, he suggested that those who burn the American flag should be put in jail. In October 2017, he threatened to revoke the media licenses of outlets which disagreed with him. In May 2018, he posited that perhaps NFL players who kneel during the national anthem should be deported.
These are just three recent examples from a long list of unabashed infringements on freedom of speech propounded by Trump. As we enter the 2020 campaign season, it is doubtful that they’ll be the last. It seems that for this president, free speech and First Amendment rights only apply when politically convenient to his agenda. He has no qualms threatening those same rights when they are appealed to by ideological opponents.
Of course, Trump is far from the only politician who supports the right to free speech selectively. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, first in 1969, and then reaffirming in 2017 that there are no “hate speech” exemptions to the First Amendment, many top Democrats are quick to disagree. Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., once said on Facebook that “My First amendment right is DIFFERENT from yours,” in response to a constituent.
It seems to be a recurring theme that those who claim to believe in the power of the First Amendment are quick to invoke it when it comes to their right of expression and that of their political allies, yet brazenly disregard it when it undermines their desired outcomes. But protecting free speech should not be a partisan issue. If Trump disagrees with the diagnosis of an issue or method of protest by NFL players, he should by all means start a public dialogue, but not call for them to be silenced. Likewise, if Democrats feel that a particular person is spreading racism and xenophobia, it should be easy enough to pick apart the inherent flaws in his or her argument.
Once we start silencing unpopular voices, however, it is a slippery slope towards tyranny.
Benjamin Franklin, the principal architect of our Bill of Rights, once said that “there can be no such thing as public liberty without free speech.” In times as polarized as these, we must hold fast to this sage advice.
As the election approaches, people are already reeling from the partisanship in Washington, and the propensity of elected officials to stake polar opposite positions and employ whatever means necessary to silence those who disagree with them. Now more than ever in this country, we would benefit from the realization that all views should be welcome and that meaningful dialogue and compromise will unite us and reap far greater long-term rewards than oppressive tactics designed to silence one’s critics. We don’t need disingenuous soundbites from politicians claiming to value free speech — we need true commitment.
Max Keating is a student at the Georgetown Walsh School of Foreign Service.
