Universities’ Attack on Freedom of Speech

Photo by Nick Youngson is licensed for use under CC BY-SA 3.0.

In the last five years, the percentage of college students who believe their free speech rights are secure on campus has dropped by 20 percent, the percentage of students who agree their college climate prohibits students from expressing themselves has risen almost 10 percent, and students continue to believe that their free speech rights are under threat more than their other First Amendment rights. While 81 percent of students favor a college climate in which all types of speech are present, a new wave of political correctness is sweeping across universities, putting this possibility in jeopardy. This movement calls for students' emotions to be prioritized inside and outside the classroom through the establishment of speech codes, trigger warnings, and safe spaces. As a result, universities have been focused on creating a comfortable learning environment, neglecting the effect these actions have on free speech. These policies undermine the importance of the First Amendment, creating a sheltered college climate which impedes the university’s ability to achieve its purpose of educating students and preparing them for life after graduation.

The presence of over-restrictive speech codes is the most obvious method in which universities infringe upon their students’ right to free speech. Advocates of these codes argue that since they protect students from speech that incites violence, they act in accordance with the First Amendment. However, a majority of university restrictions placed on students’ speech far surpass protection against physical harm. Harvard University’s speech code, for example, insists that its students must uphold their “obligations of civility and respect for others.” Bates College’s guidelines include “insults or taunts” in their list of prohibited speech. While any university can hope that all students will have the decency to respect one another and the maturity to withhold from insults or taunts, it is the enforcement of these virtues that presents a problem. A student attending The College of New Jersey can even be punished for “telling jokes...even if there was no intent on the part of an individual to harass or demean another.” If a student's intent bears no significance so long as the “victim” of their words is offended, almost anything could be a violation of the speech code. While an extreme example , this speech code represents the likely future of other universities’ restrictions. Since some universities are private institutions, they can legally enforce rules which violate the First Amendment. This does not mean that they should. Freedom of speech is a pillar of American democracy. It is one of the country's most prized values; it is the first amendment to the US Constitution. On principle alone, universities should respect their students’ freedom of speech. But principle aside, this new push for political correctness impedes the ability of universities to achieve their main goals. 

Above all else, providing education is the purpose of university. Freedom of speech is an integral part of fulfilling this purpose. Rigorous discussions are required to gain a comprehensive understanding of any subject matter across the humanities. By discouraging students from entertaining controversial debate, universities are denying students a crucial part of their education. This threat to liberal arts education is demonstrated clearly through the story of Yeonmi Park, a 27 year old North Korean defector and Columbia University graduate. After spending the majority of her life under Kim Jung Un’s regime, Park escaped and eventually became a U.S. citizen. In hopes of furthering her education, Park enrolled at Columbia University in 2016, excited to “learn how to think.” While attending Columbia College, however, she was shocked to find one of the most prestigious universities in the world was instead “forcing you to think the way they want you to think.” Through her experiences at the university involving trigger warnings, stifled in-class discussions, and closed-minded professors, she “saw so many similarities to what [she] saw in North Korea that [she] started worrying” for the future of the Western world. As someone who has escaped the most infamous modern-day brainwashing, Park’s conclusions on the effects of enforced political correctness should not be taken lightly.

Speech codes on college campuses do not begin and end with students, universities have also placed similar restrictions on professors. In recent years, professors have been required to avoid microaggressions and provide trigger warnings for students in order to protect students from possibly offensive content. For example, in a recent professional training session, University of California deans and department chairs were instructed to avoid microaggressions such as “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” While some may view this statement as undermining the value of affirmative action, many would see it as promoting the same meritocracy that the University of California’s extremely low acceptance rates promote. It is important to recognize that marginalized minorities are sometimes denied employment for arbitrary reasons. Still, this does not invalidate the statement that the most qualified person should get the job; legitimate qualification is not an arbitrary reason. The university, however, views this microaggression as so offensive that if uttered, a professor would be creating a “hostile learning environment,” which is a fireable offense. If professors censor themselves for the sake of being politically correct, they are not providing their students with the most genuine information available, putting the quality of education on the backburner. 

The same culture that motivates these speech restrictions also requires the use of trigger warnings before potentially uncomfortable topics are taught in class. While the use of trigger warnings to simply alert students before such topics are discussed is reasonable, it is common that as a result of these trigger warnings, students deem class material too triggering to learn. Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gersun experienced this when she was pressured into avoiding teaching the subject of rape law to avoid distressing her students. Gersun puts it best when she asks her adversaries to “imagine a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.” While it is obvious why students may wish to avoid this sensitive topic, it is important to remember that it is essential to the career path that they chose to pursue. 

This pattern of sheltering students continues outside the classroom as well, through the creation of “safe spaces” across campuses. According to the Knight Foundation, in 2020 “78% of college students favor colleges providing safe spaces” which they define as “areas of campus that are designed to be free from threatening actions, ideas, or conversations.” While the creation of safe spaces may not impact student’s education, this practice impedes another major goal of universities: preparing students to navigate the “real world'' after graduation. University-mandated “safe spaces” are essentially university-mandated echo chambers. These areas act as a shield, protecting students from any opinions that differ from their own. It's no surprise that 78 percent of students favor them; who wouldn’t find relief in a world where everyone agrees with them? Universities are neglecting to acknowledge that that world does not exist: the world is not a safe space. In every aspect of life after graduation—work, family, friends, the DMV—students will be forced to deal with people with whom they disagree. People are protected in the real world to a certain extent, offensive coworkers would probably get fired for bigoted language, for example. However, this does not mean that every person is guaranteed to be surrounded by people who agree with them. Instead of learning how to practice civil disagreement, students are learning how to avoid disagreement. As a result, universities are creating generations of intolerant, uncollaborative citizens. 

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes states in his famous dissent in Abrams v United States, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Universities should not ban the expression of “bad” ideas, students should determine which ideas are worthwhile, and which are not. Not only does this preserve each student’s First Amendment rights, it allows all students to learn from each other. It allows the university to do the job it was created to do. For this to occur, universities must prioritize their students’ education over their students’ emotions. Speech codes should only limit students’ speech to the same extent that the First Amendment limits Americans’ speech. Enforced microaggression training, mandatory trigger warnings, and university established safe spaces should be abolished. By restricting speech on campus, universities are only proving George Martin right in that “when you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”