As American citizens, one of the fundamental rights we are allowed is that of the freedom of speech. Throughout the course of history, the limitation of freedom of speech and expression appears as a common method utilized from all-controlling governmental bodies. From Nazi Germany, to various dictatorial nations during the recent Arab Spring, powers have restricted speech to put their citizens in a chokehold. In the United States, we take our freedom of expression for granted. For we have never faced an oppression of our speech on the level of other countries throughout history. Yet on our college campuses, institutions meant to harbor a variety of ideas and reflect American values, the freedom to express your thoughts and opinions is being actively restricted by a variety of parties. This is an issue that must be addressed promptly, and the most impactful way universities could do so is by putting an emphasis on presenting speakers, and supporting groups that reflect a great variety of opinions and backgrounds alike, while educating all their students on the value of free speech. American universities also should support the right of anyone to protest a speaker or group on campus, but any individual working to shut down a speaker needs to face consequences. 

America truly began to take notice to freedom of speech on its campuses during the Free Speech Movement (FSM) of the 1960s which was fronted by students of UC Berkeley (Sanford). The movement saw students protesting to lift bans on political activity on college grounds (Freeman). The movement set precedent in giving more power to students to speak freely about politically charged subjects at universities (Freeman). Since the FSM, there have been multiple incidents of students challenging their rights to speech on campus, but according to Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a new wave of challenges to speech on campus saw a resurgence in 2013. He says a speech from NYPD commissioner Raymond Kelly in October of 2013 being shut down by students marked the beginning of a time in which it was not just college administrators challenging freedom of speech, but students as well (Lukianoff). According to a 2016 Gallup survey of college students, 54 percent of students felt they could not say something they believe on campus due to the fear it may appear offensive to someone else, 24 percent believed media should not be allowed to cover their protests, and 69 percent believed their college administrators should enact policies against offensive speech (Capuzzi Simon). In modern America, students are now reversing the progress made in the 20th century which gave them a widened amount of speech rights on their campuses, and together with college administrators, are damaging the American university’s role as a foster for ideas and opinions. 

While many Americans would assume that the issue of the state of freedom of speech on college campuses is an isolated affair that only college students and employees should have to worry about, this is not the case. Although university students and faculty are the primary players in regards to this issue, it expands much further. The media, scholars, and politicians all have a huge interest in the debate over freedom of speech on campuses. This is so partially because the topic is a multi sided argument with no black and white sides. The debate has also caught their attention because it has demonstrated its ability to divide students, result in the firing of college administrators, and even ignite violent riots on campuses. The limited state of free speech on campus truly has the capability to affect all of America though. The ideas about freedom of speech that today’s college students show in their schools are reflective of what we can expect to see present in tomorrow’s lawyers, journalists, and politicians. Individuals in positions to directly influence ideas about freedom of speech on a national level. As Ryan Muldoon, assistant professor in philosophy from the university at Buffalo echoes in his article, “Free Speech and Learning from Difference”, “Universities play an important role in shaping future citizens, and as such campus speech holds a place of special importance in broader national debates. But ultimately, this is a microcosm of our broader moral and political tensions, just manifested in a particular setting.” Since the debate over freedom of speech on campus affects such a wide array of parties with varying ideas, there are bound to be many arguments against my position on the subject. 

One argument that lies in opposition to my position is brought about by Assistant Professor of English at Colby College, Aaron Hanlon. In his article, “Why Colleges Have a Right to Reject Hateful Speakers like Ann Coulter” for New Republic, Hanlon’s primary point of argument is that “no platforming” speakers on campus is not a form of censorship, but instead a “Value judgement” and byproduct of freedom of expression that helps provide a classically liberal education. The audience he most likely aims to appeal towards is one that cares mostly about protecting students from feeling targeted by any speaker. Although this group is highly impacted by appeals to emotion it is also more likely to support restricting speech if they are given what appears to be a logical reason to, which Hanlon attempts to convey.  As defined by Hanlon himself though, the fundamental roots of a liberal education was “knowledge the ancient Greeks and Romans believed were necessary for the flourishing of a free person, necessary for full and effective participation in civic life.” So by restricting students from hearing a variety of opinions, are universities turning students into free thinkers who are prepared for civic life? I would argue instead that by restricting the speech of a speaker, college administrations are effectively abandoning the ideals of a liberal education. For one to truly become a free person, they must have the ability to choose what they find to be meaningful and true, so by restricting the speech of anyone on campus, students’ freedom to decide what they find true is impaired. No one is truly a free thinker if they only have one genre of opinions they are surrounded by. Also, in true civic life, one will encounter a massive array of opinions they do not agree with, and based upon the popularity of many speakers who are barred from speaking on campus, it is highly likely students will come across individuals with similar viewpoints to them. So by preventing their speech, students simply are sheltered from prevailing ideas in the world.

 As far as supporting the de-platforming as a form of “Value judgement,” Hanlon compares universities rejecting speakers to him curating what students will learn in his “Age of Revolution” class. He says, “If I end up leaving off James Madison in favor of Edmund Burke, I’m hardly censoring Madison.” The comparison between deciding what is most important in a history course, and who should be permitted to speak on campus simply does not make sense. The goal of a history course is to provide adequate knowledge of a time period or historical events, while avoiding bias as it is taught. Deciding someone is not fit to speak on your campus because staff and students disagree with them politically is a direct result of bias, silencing one side of the argument as if it is irrelevant while in turn allowing the opposition to speak as they please. 

As far as the legality of banning speakers on public universities, Erwin Chemerinsky, a legal scholar and expert on the first amendment says: 

It is important to recognize that a public university has no choice but to allow speakers on campus even if their message is regarded as hateful or racist. If the campus tried to exclude such a speaker, it would get sued and the speaker would win and likely would be made a martyr for the First Amendment in the process. Nothing can be gained by exclusion.

Colleges selecting speakers as if they were just choosing the most important aspects for a class is not even a legal option at the vast majority of universities in the United States. Instead of trying to find ways to prevent speakers from presenting at campuses, colleges should instead allow them their platform as it is not only the law, but because it also gives students the chance to hear ideas from across the aisle and come to their own conclusions. Also, if any college representatives feel it to be necessary, they are free to announce that the school does not support any statements of the speaker without completely silencing them.  

Robert Post, a professor from Yale also challenges the role of freedom of speech on campus in his article, “There is No 1st Amendment Right to Speak on a College Campus.” Post begins by stating that “There are many arenas in which all ideas are not considered equal.” He continues by saying doctors are expected to give patients scientifically backed opinions, and that, similarly, universities must sort through what ideas and opinions are best when hiring faculty and collecting material for courses. He goes on to argue classrooms are not the place for speech without limitation, and that it would be ridiculous for a professor to allow students to yell obscenities in the class. Finally, Post reaches the main idea of his argument, that colleges are misguided in their allowance of controversial speakers to their campus. He says that a university’s main mission is to educate, and therefore any speaker the school views as an obstacle to this goal should be prevented from speaking. The issue with this is that it simply places too much power into the hands of university officials. Based upon this argument, they would become gatekeepers of anyone speaking on campus, deciding to disallow anyone they feel does not fit their opinion of what a student’s education should be like. Yet, as Chemerinsky stated in direct opposition to this point, “the assumption of freedom of speech, and of academic freedom, is that education is enhanced when there is more speech, not when government officials have the power to censor and punish speech they don’t like.” College administrators should instead give students the means necessary to seek out and invite speakers to their campus. Students hearing the ideas of someone the school’s administration does not agree with will not in any sense ruin the education provided in classrooms, and instead proves that students really do want to hear a variety of opinions. 

In a time in which the freedom of speech on American college campuses faces opposition, I believe it is important that these schools make it their priority to protect speech on their grounds, as students need to hear a range of opinions to become free thinkers and operate in a society rife with differences in viewpoints. Because of the extreme importance of freedom of speech and expression on university grounds, measures must be taken to ensure its survival.

There is undoubtedly a point where speech does in fact cross a line and incite violence, or simply amount to useless rhetoric meant to create tension between groups. When a speaker or group calls for any sort of physical harm, or makes threats, they have overstepped the rights granted by the first amendment. The point of protecting freedom of speech on American campuses is not to give an outlet to hate groups or anyone trying to get a rise out of students and faculty. It is to ensure that all ideas have equal protection and ability to be heard.

 Freedom of speech on American campuses is absolutely critical to students’ academic development throughout their years at their college. In order to protect students’ rights to freedom of expression across the country, the best course of action would be to adopt legislation that prohibits anyone from infringing on these rights. In June of this year, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill called the Campus Free Speech Act (Martin). The act makes multiple moves in the right direction to protect free speech on campuses. For one, the bill protects speakers’ rights to deliver their message on any University of Wisconsin schools, stating that any speaker formally invited by students or faculty are allowed to speak on campus, and that all public areas on campus are to be public forums open to any speaker. The Campus Free Speech Act also enforces students’ rights to protest any speaker at their university, but with a key limitation. It states: 

Any person lawfully present on campus may protest or demonstrate there. This statement shall make clear that protests and demonstrations that interfere with the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction.

The mention of demonstrations that interfere with others’ rights leads into the most important section of the bill, the described disciplinary actions that must be taken if a student infringes on another's’ right to free speech. The bill calls for any student who is found to have interfered with another’s freedom of expression twice to be suspended for a semester or expelled. I believe the best course of action for America to protect freedom of speech on its university grounds is for the federal government to take time to observe the effects of The Campus Free Speech Act in Wisconsin, and then create a similar bill with any necessary adjustments that applies to the entire country. 
