Who would have ever thought that the left in America would ever gain enough strength to threaten our fundamental constitutional right to freedom of speech, association and thought? The left, especially the progressive and socialist left in America have become by far the most intolerant and illiberal elements of American society. Let's hope that we are rediscovering the beauty of diversity of thought that these people seek to destroy.
Trump and Congress Can Help Restore Campus Free Speech
Withdraw the Obama Title IX ‘guidance’ and tie federal funds to respect for the First Amendment.
By
Harvey Silverglate
April 30, 2017 4:21 p.m. ET
President Trump with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at the White House, April 26. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The culture of censorship within higher education is now legendary. And although the problem is of long standing, the Obama administration made it worse by giving academic bureaucrats a convenient excuse—“the feds made us do it”—for punishing speech. The Trump administration and Congress could help restore academic freedom, without which higher education cannot flourish.
Campus censorship affects faculty as well as students and guest speakers. And conservatives aren’t the only targets. At Louisiana State University, Teresa Buchanan’s tenure didn’t protect her from dismissal in 2015 for occasionally using vulgar language in her education classes. She did so, she said, to prepare future teachers for the language they would encounter from some students. Administrators ignored a unanimous faculty committee recommendation against termination and a report of the American Association of University Professors that found Ms. Buchanan’s academic freedom was violated.
In a statement to the press, LSU claimed it was following “the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’ advisements.” That would be a 2013 OCR statement, in a settlement with the University of Montana, that in order to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws, universities must ban “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal” conduct—in other words, speech. LSU gave these “advisements” weight because of OCR’s power to withhold federal funding. The Obama administration’s overreach in higher education produced many stories like Ms. Buchanan’s.
The new administration has an opportunity to undo this damage. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos should instruct OCR to rescind its “guidance” undermining the right to free speech and guarantee that universities that receive federal dollars return to their role as centers of inquiry and learning, not censorship and indoctrination. Further, OCR’s practice of setting national standards through “guidance”—without seeking comment from academic institutions and the public—should end. Future regulations should be subject to open debate, as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
The department should further clarify that the governing definition of harassment in the educational setting must be the one set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). Under Davis,“harassment” is limited to conduct that is discriminatory, targeted and “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprives the victim of access to educational opportunities.
Congress can also take steps to vindicate free speech on campus. The law currently conditions federal funding on compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws such as Title IX, but it does not require schools—even public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment—to refrain from violating free-speech rights as a condition of funding. As a result, while universities spend millions on antidiscrimination efforts, speech codes are ubiquitous. According to a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 93% of colleges and universities prohibit constitutionally protected speech.
Congress should deny funding to institutions with policies that violate free-speech rights. Such legislation would hold universities to their own professed fundamental principles. While institutions frequently cite the importance of “diversity and inclusion,” in practice they aim at producing students who look different but think alike.
Opponents of free speech on campus conflate speech with violence, and physical safety with emotional comfort. Students who take offense at speech claim to be the victims of harassment or “bias incidents.” Rather than challenge students’ notions that they are entitled to be “safe” from offense, administrators validate this behavior by establishing elaborate “bias reporting systems.” A FIRE survey of such systems uncovered one incident at Ohio State University in which students shared a meme comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler. That prompted a mandatory dormitory floor meeting to discuss the “triggering” event.
The trend cannot be reversed unless universities—which too often behave like companies beholden to customers and regulators, rather than institutions that prepare students for citizenship—push back against illiberal expectations. One step is to adopt a version of the University of Chicago’s 2015 free-speech policy statement, which asserts: “It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
Reviving free speech on campus will require action on multiple fronts and by many interested parties, including university trustees, administrators, faculty, students and donors. The federal government can’t make that happen, but by making academic freedom a requirement for rather than an obstacle to federal aid, it can help.
Mr. Silverglate, a co-author of “The Shadow University,” is a co-founder and board member of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Samantha Harris, FIRE’s vice president for policy research, contributed to this article.
Trump and Congress Can Help Restore Campus Free Speech
Withdraw the Obama Title IX ‘guidance’ and tie federal funds to respect for the First Amendment.
By
Harvey Silverglate
April 30, 2017 4:21 p.m. ET
President Trump with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at the White House, April 26. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The culture of censorship within higher education is now legendary. And although the problem is of long standing, the Obama administration made it worse by giving academic bureaucrats a convenient excuse—“the feds made us do it”—for punishing speech. The Trump administration and Congress could help restore academic freedom, without which higher education cannot flourish.
Campus censorship affects faculty as well as students and guest speakers. And conservatives aren’t the only targets. At Louisiana State University, Teresa Buchanan’s tenure didn’t protect her from dismissal in 2015 for occasionally using vulgar language in her education classes. She did so, she said, to prepare future teachers for the language they would encounter from some students. Administrators ignored a unanimous faculty committee recommendation against termination and a report of the American Association of University Professors that found Ms. Buchanan’s academic freedom was violated.
In a statement to the press, LSU claimed it was following “the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’ advisements.” That would be a 2013 OCR statement, in a settlement with the University of Montana, that in order to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws, universities must ban “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal” conduct—in other words, speech. LSU gave these “advisements” weight because of OCR’s power to withhold federal funding. The Obama administration’s overreach in higher education produced many stories like Ms. Buchanan’s.
The new administration has an opportunity to undo this damage. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos should instruct OCR to rescind its “guidance” undermining the right to free speech and guarantee that universities that receive federal dollars return to their role as centers of inquiry and learning, not censorship and indoctrination. Further, OCR’s practice of setting national standards through “guidance”—without seeking comment from academic institutions and the public—should end. Future regulations should be subject to open debate, as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
The department should further clarify that the governing definition of harassment in the educational setting must be the one set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). Under Davis,“harassment” is limited to conduct that is discriminatory, targeted and “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprives the victim of access to educational opportunities.
Congress can also take steps to vindicate free speech on campus. The law currently conditions federal funding on compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws such as Title IX, but it does not require schools—even public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment—to refrain from violating free-speech rights as a condition of funding. As a result, while universities spend millions on antidiscrimination efforts, speech codes are ubiquitous. According to a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 93% of colleges and universities prohibit constitutionally protected speech.
Congress should deny funding to institutions with policies that violate free-speech rights. Such legislation would hold universities to their own professed fundamental principles. While institutions frequently cite the importance of “diversity and inclusion,” in practice they aim at producing students who look different but think alike.
Opponents of free speech on campus conflate speech with violence, and physical safety with emotional comfort. Students who take offense at speech claim to be the victims of harassment or “bias incidents.” Rather than challenge students’ notions that they are entitled to be “safe” from offense, administrators validate this behavior by establishing elaborate “bias reporting systems.” A FIRE survey of such systems uncovered one incident at Ohio State University in which students shared a meme comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler. That prompted a mandatory dormitory floor meeting to discuss the “triggering” event.
The trend cannot be reversed unless universities—which too often behave like companies beholden to customers and regulators, rather than institutions that prepare students for citizenship—push back against illiberal expectations. One step is to adopt a version of the University of Chicago’s 2015 free-speech policy statement, which asserts: “It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
Reviving free speech on campus will require action on multiple fronts and by many interested parties, including university trustees, administrators, faculty, students and donors. The federal government can’t make that happen, but by making academic freedom a requirement for rather than an obstacle to federal aid, it can help.
Mr. Silverglate, a co-author of “The Shadow University,” is a co-founder and board member of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Samantha Harris, FIRE’s vice president for policy research, contributed to this article.
