New at Reason

December 24, 2007

How bad are colleges doing when it comes to guaranteeing free speech? Michael C. Moynihan investigates the persistence of campus speech codes and puts the academy on double-secret probation. Read all about it here.

Comments

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 1:29PM|#

I find that in most of these incidents there's some back story. The speech codes these days are generally not used to enforce ideology (though they can be turned to that end). Rather, they're a tool used against those who have done something to piss somebody off. Or perhaps as a tool to over-react to a real but minor incident.

These days, it's more about authority rather than ideology. Which is no better from the standpoint of individual liberty. Still, events can unfold differently, and whereas ideological campaigns usually seek to indoctrinate everybody, authorities usually focus their wrath on those who get their attention. The effects can be less widespread.

Not a defense of anything, just an observation.

Episiarch|12.24.07 @ 1:35PM|#

My question is: what is it about universities that makes them so prone to speech codes? I agree with thoreau that it has probably devolved from ideology to authority, but does that mean that university professors and administrators have a tendency towards authoritarianism?

Edward|12.24.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Most academics are former leftists who haven't gotten over losing the economics argument.

Edward|12.24.07 @ 1:45PM|#

What I really meant is that most academics (in the humanities, not the sciences) are leftists who have morphed from the economic left to the cultural left. They're a very intolerant bunch with a lot invested in postmodernist drivel.

dhex|12.24.07 @ 1:46PM|#

road to hell, good intentions, etc etc and so forth.

still i mean, in the belly of the beast at cuny i never saw anything that out of place...and hell, i had one republican anti-abortion professor who was very adamant (a little too adamant, frankly) about his own feelings in class.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Episiarch-

A few things. First, yes, some faculty like authority. And just about all administrators, almost by definition.

Second, college students are easily offended. People at that age get fired up more easily about stupid shit (some of it PC, some of it not PC, but all of it stupid). When there's an incident that pisses off enough of them, it helps to have some arbitrary tools for coming down on the scapegoats. And if those tools can be wielded in the name of "sensitivity", then the hurt feelings of college students will be more easily assuaged.

The targets of the codes, as well as the targets of more reasonable measures, can also be easily offended over stupid shit. So when some jackass gets in trouble for being a jackass, it helps if he can persuade himself that the REAL reason they came down on him was that his views are despised by the PC police. The speech codes help them erect a cocoon of convenient and self-flattering denials. And when the feelings of victimhood become overpowering, they can turn to David Horowitz, who will be happy to collect speaking fees to decry the mistreatment of a jackass.

Really, it's quite a nice 3-ring circus that overly sensitive PC students, overly insensitive un-PC jackasses, and the administrators have going. It provides entertainment for the rest of us when we need a break from teaching and research.

Edward|12.24.07 @ 1:52PM|#

thoreau

When I need a break from teaching and research, I come here.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 1:54PM|#

And when we need a break from you, Edward, we put Ron Paul banners on the quad and wait for the PC police to come after us.

LOL707|12.24.07 @ 2:01PM|#

I was threatened with suspension for making a joke about terrorism. The Dean of Undergraduates took it Very Seriously and warned me that "speech becomes behavior". I found that very insulting, as perhaps choice is an intermediating factor.

Episiarch|12.24.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Edward, maybe you should do some research. Into obsession. Such as your obsession with Ron Paul.

Episiarch|12.24.07 @ 2:15PM|#

I was threatened with suspension for making a joke about terrorism.

One thing I've thought about is that it's a damn good thing I am no longer in school. Because I have a tendency to make very offensive jokes. The kind that can really upset people.

|12.24.07 @ 2:36PM|#

I've never understood why students are treated less than what they are,customers buying a product[education].They are of adult age and anything they say and do outside the class room short breaking a law is none of the schools concern.It seems many are so busy creating classes of no practical use and others being a farm team for pro sports they have little time for what matters.Preparing students for their life's work.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 2:43PM|#

They are of adult age and anything they say and do outside the class room short breaking a law is none of the schools concern.

Yes, but student misconduct carries 3 potential risks for the school:
1) Legal liability.
2) Potential bad press for high profile incidents.
3) Student protests when high profile incidents aren't handled to somebody's satisfaction.

If it weren't for the first 2, administrators would probably take the attitude of "Eh, they're paying for education, that's it" and not try to control conduct outside the classroom. But as long as students are spending much of their time outside class on school property (even those who don't live in the dorms will still study on campus between classes) their conduct outside class remains school business. And the third issue arguably is a response to customer demand.

dhex|12.24.07 @ 2:46PM|#

of course, there is also value in genuine intercultural communications training; the way some of it is done on the university undergrad level, however, leaves a lot to be desired.

|12.24.07 @ 2:46PM|#

The reactions to speech codes aren't what's wrong with them, thoreau -- though regarding the monsters who wield them and the people they destroy as participating in an "entertainment" that diverts you from your daily importances is deeply fucked up.

Not all of us are so safe, and your feint at evenhandedness -- three hands, even! -- is given away by your smugness, which always sides with authority.

EAT THIS FUCKING FRUTCAKE!

|12.24.07 @ 2:49PM|#

(just what counts as harassment, after all?)

This was the best sentence of the whole article.

Until people realize that "harassment" is not real, they're going to use it to hold others hostage.

dhex|12.24.07 @ 2:54PM|#

harassment isn't real?

this is news to me.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Look, I oppose the speech codes, but I am not going to ignore the fact that these incidents are often a bit more complicated than just "innocent guy vs. evil authority." Often (but certainly not always) somebody is being a jackass, and then somebody else over-reacts. The over-reaction is unacceptable in any case, especially by somebody in a position of authority. But there's also an element of feeding a victim mentality, and I'm not going to overlook that.

I reserve the right to deplore the abuse of authority AND laugh at idiots with big victim mentalities. It's possible to do both.

|12.24.07 @ 2:57PM|#

"The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch.
And I don't like anybody very much"
- "The Merry Minuet" (The Kingston Trio (IIRC)

|12.24.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Not all of us are so safe, and your feint at evenhandedness -- three hands, even! -- is given away by your smugness, which always sides with authority.

Hoo boy, I sense we're on our way to another 2000 comment thread...

I'm not sure what you're going for here (I presume that it was for self-satisfaction rather than its educational value), but your immaturity and lack of insight is apparent.

I can only presume you were born prior to Roe v. Wade, because you couldn't have been birthed by choice.

|12.24.07 @ 3:00PM|#

harassment isn't real?

I'm willing to explain: if you look at any "harassment" rule, it generally says some kind of variant of "whatever the accuser says it is".

|12.24.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Sure if on campus the schools have a right to have a code of conduct.Most have codes that cover off campus housing and activities.Many demand freshmen live on campus and give up rights to privacy and free conduct most renters enjoy every where.When I was in college I lived off campus in a private apartment.If I wanted to have a women over or drink a beer at home I could.I was there to learn what I needed to live a productive life not to be parented.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Another element here is that in many cases there is a squeaky wheel claiming victim status, and the authorities end up appeasing the squeaky wheel.

I'm against speech codes, but I would also say that the incidents that get attention are frequently complicated manifestations of eternal problems: Jackass seeking attention vs. over-reaction authority, or squeaky wheel demanding grease. Focusing exclusively on the speech codes over-simplifies what is in fact a very old and intractable problem, and directs outrage at the symptom rather than the disease.

Oppose the speech codes, but don't ignore the squeaky wheels, jackasses, and authorities at the heart of the problems. These problems run much deeper than any particular policy.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 3:08PM|#

I was there to learn what I needed to live a productive life not to be parented.

I completely agree. But even if everybody lives off campus, there will still be a lot of studying, socializing, gathering, and discussion on campus. And in those activities, it's inevitable that somebody will get upset at somebody else. And once that happens, the owners of that property, the people trying to provide a place for academic activity, need to either tell them to knock it off (not easy), order them off the property (probably an over-reaction) or else try to mediate and cool it down so the discussions and studying can continue. Once that third option is chosen, the pathologies of jackasses, authorities, and squeaky wheels will set in.

|12.24.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Often (but certainly not always) somebody is being a jackass, and then somebody else over-reacts.

Yes, that is certainly sometimes the case, but I think the problem is in saying that someone being a jackass is somehow of comparative relevance to the fundamental principle that is (or ought to be) free expression. It doesn't really make the situation all that more complicated even when someone is indeed being a jackass - that is precisely when the supposed intellectuals ought to rise above such pettiness and stand on the very principles their livelihood depends on for its existence. Saying that it's not always just a battle between a noble idea against the evil authority trying to squelch it threatens to bury the principle in a pile of moral equivalence. I'm not saying that you think it's equivalent, but your comment seems to give some comfort to those administrators who justify this kind of garbage by saying they're just trying to balance the need for free expression with the need to be free of jackasses (yes, I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly -- see below)*.

We shouldn't give an inch on that front and I can see how one might interpret your comment to be at least tempering your distaste for these rules on the basis that it's usually just a jackass who finds himself on the business end of them (again, to be clear, I know that's not what you're saying). It doesn't matter who is getting swatted for saying something "offensive" -- some racist jerk-off or Galileo himself, the principle of free expression is such a fundamental one that it is never necessary to ask who it is being silenced before deciding how important it is to oppose the restrictions.

*

UMass chancellor David Scott argued that it was the job of the administration to balance two concepts that "the university holds dear: protection of free expression and the creation of a multicultural community free of harassment and intimidation."

|12.24.07 @ 3:58PM|#

Brian - your comment holds water with public universities. Private ones, not so much.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Brian-

I agree. The principle of free expression cannot be compromised. When I emphasize the role that jackasses play here, my point is not to justify the speech code. Rather, it's to point out the true nature of the threat: The age old dynamics of jackasses, over-reacting authorities, overly sensitive squeaky wheels demanding attention, etc. Ideology is a bit player in this. They may pay lip service to a particular ideology, but the actual incidents are usually less about ideology than screwed up interpersonal dynamics.

Those who make this out to be a purely ideological matter (and I know you're not one of them) are missing the true nature of the problem.

Also, the sad truth is that sometimes jackasses do cross a line for which they need to be punished. Having a dissenting view, and even being rude about it, is one thing. Constantly disrupting class, however, is a disservice to one's fellow students. There are gray areas there, and making it about ideology drags ancillary issues into tough cases.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Randian-

As a matter of law, Brian's argument certainly does not apply very well to private universities. However, a private university could set itself the voluntary goal of being a place for free expression, and we could then debate how best the university should conduct itself to achieve that voluntarily chosen goal (while of course remembering that it is private property, yadda yadda). I would argue that private universities would do well to embrace the principles of free expression, even if their private status does not legally obligate them to do so. It is better for the fulfillment of their academic mission.

However, we should again recognize that in a private university the greatest threat to free speech is often not a PC ideology. Rather, it is the need to appease squeaky wheels, protect the image, and all that other stuff.

Thorough|12.24.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Look I oppose genocide but there is usually some back-storty here. It is not as simple as jack-booted SS storm troopers vs hook-nosed, well poisoning, christ-killing, moneylenders who control Hollywood and Wall street

|12.24.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Oh, thoreau, I agree...perhaps I was sloppy but I thought that Brian was arguing for the law to apply across the board.

Dear Troll who posts disgusting posts - last chance to stop. (4:07 PM...talking to you).

|12.24.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Private ones, not so much.

Indeed, let me of course be clear that a private institution ought to be legally free to set whatever asinine restrictions it wants. I certainly agree.

Having said that, my comment above didn't say anything about forcing private institutions to do anything. It was about principle, and the lack of respect for such, shown by academics who rely on the very principle they so easily trash.

There is a difference between what a private institution should be allowed legally and what it ought to do morally. Given that it is populated by the same types of people who expect academic freedom (including that of expression) I would still be saddened by them giving in to the apparent instinct for authority with respect to limiting what people can and can't say around campus. I'd still be disheartened but the utter lack of principle shown by those you'd hope would know better.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 4:18PM|#

"Thorough"-

You were only half-wrong in your impersonation. I would indeed argue that even in atrocities there is usually a backstory, and it's important to learn how this happened rather than just assume that one day a bunch of people decided to go after their neighbors. Usually that backstory will involve a crisis, manipulation of public opinion, etc., and it is better to learn from that backstory than to assume that one day everybody was seized by the same idea out of the blue and acted on it.

In the case of speech codes, I'm not about to let some jackass make himself a martyr, nor am I about to let some administrator paint himself as a hero for coming down on a jackass. I'd rather tell it like it is: The best response to a jackass's speech is more speech. That's the real lesson to be taken from these cases. If we ignore the backstory we allow the jackass to set the agenda, when in fact we should be responding to him with more speech.

|12.24.07 @ 4:29PM|#

You know, I was just considering writing a (something...article? Piece?) giving a qualified defense of the PC crowd, in the limited sense that they attacked racial stereotypes (egregious ones like the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo!) through the very methods I like: not the State. Granted, I think they're a little weird and have odd priorities, but hey, we all have our hobby horses and it takes all kinds.

Anywho, I say qualified because I am a Washington Redskins fan, and I think that's one dignified looking Amerind, if I do say so myself. And there's a legit story about it:

Lone Star Dietz

I agree with you, Brian. It wasn't my intent to be hostile.

thoreau|12.24.07 @ 4:44PM|#

Backstory also matters because sometimes the student really is in the wrong.

A colleague of mine teaches evolutionary biology, and he often has to deal with creationists. Some of them will write papers that are off-topic, and get a bad grade as a result. They are told what the topic is, and they are told that they don't have to agree with anybody's opinion, just analyze the data available in the scientific literature. The assignment isn't to accept an idea, just to explain it. It's reasonable to expect people to explain ideas, irrespective of whether they agree with those ideas.

As far as I know, none of his students have tried to turn it into a high profile incident. However, if one of them did, it would be easy to paint it as "Student is given F for being a Christian." The backstory would be necessary, as in the cases my colleague has described to me he hasn't penalize anybody for beliefs, only for their refusal to explain an idea.

Always ask for the backstory. That holds true whether the person making the complaint is alleging PC persecution or un-PC harassment. Even if the issue at stake is indeed free expression, it's better to know what is going on, and the nature of the threat to free expression. If free expression is being threatened by ideology, denounce the elevation of ideology above expression. If free expression is being threatened by squeaky wheels, power-hungry administrators, or whatever else, denounce that threat.

|12.24.07 @ 5:25PM|#

"Student is given F for being a Christian."

OTOH, the concept does appeal to me in and of itself.

|12.24.07 @ 6:25PM|#

OTOH, the concept does appeal to me in and of itself.

Heh. Well, it beats being fed to the lions so they shouldn't complain... "always look on the bright side of life" or some such.

BONG HITS 4 JESUS|12.25.07 @ 9:02AM|#

Just remember, you can't make a joke involving a bong and Jesus, even if you're not on school grounds, because a school administrator who is a humorless, petty, authoritarian douchebag product of an ultra-PC liberal arts university will try to punish you, and you will fight it in court, and your case will go all the way to the Supreme Court and an "illegal drug" exception will be made in First Amendment rights.

Even though you can smoke exotic flavored tobacco out of a bong, more properly called a water tobacco pipe, which is what he should have said he meant.

"WATER TOBACCO PIPE HITS FOR JESUS!"

LarryA|12.25.07 @ 5:03PM|#

My question is: what is it about universities that makes them so prone to speech codes?

There is an irony.

If a kid flunks out of high school, or barely scrapes by, we send him out to get a fast-food job and make his way as an adult.

If a kid graduates in the bottom half we offer trade school or the military, and the responsibilities of an adult.

But the best and brightest? The most responsible? We send them to college for four or five more years of childhood. Colleges and universities are convinced they must function in loco parentis, therefore all the rules are justified.

What I really meant is that most academics (in the humanities, not the sciences) are leftists who have morphed from the economic left to the cultural left.

It's a long story, but I went from being a captain in the infantry to taking undergrad sociology courses. Too many of the lib.arts profs had proceeded directly from PhDs to teaching. Many of them didn't have enough real-world experience to change a tire.

Thoreau: Yes, but student misconduct carries 3 potential risks for the school:

You missed the fourth, and most important; loss of dollars from pissed off alumni.

Until people realize that "harassment" is not real, they're going to use it to hold others hostage.

"Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never harm you." One of the first lessons my father taught me. In a more modern context (the first lesson being c 1955) under Texas self defense law it is not justified to use force (or deadly force) in response to verbal provocation alone, and you are not justified in responding with force if you provoked the force used against you.

I'd rather tell it like it is: The best response to a jackass's speech is more speech. That's the real lesson to be taken from these cases.

True, but in this case, given what passes for high school education, most underclassmen enter the arena of words unarmed. That and the sophomoric idea that "fair" = "the world will take my side."

M|12.25.07 @ 10:43PM|#

The best response to a jackass's speech is more speech.

QFT. See, everyone wins!

B|12.26.07 @ 1:09PM|#

"If a kid graduates in the bottom half we offer trade school or the military, and the responsibilities of an adult."

This is ridiculous bullshit, but I guess the assumption that the military is mostly comprised of uneducated losers is par for the course when discussing some of the jackasses that post on tnis site.

|12.26.07 @ 1:53PM|#

""[A] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality."

This is the first time I've seen the academic left's true definition of 'racism' in print. Bravo for intellectual honesty.

|12.26.07 @ 5:17PM|#

I went to college in the early 80s. 1980s. :).
Back in those days, when granpas carried onions in their belts, the p.c. movement and hate speech code crowd really was dominated by the left. I was told in one class it was racist to use the term "black comedy" and I should use "tragicomedy" (never mind that that term means something different) instead. Just for one example. I also remember disciplinary meetings held for students who crossed some speech code line. Additionally, I remember at least one guy getting kicked out of his women's studies class for questioning assumptions...and maybe for being a jackass. Yet, what does it mean to defend free speech if it doesn't mean a defense of speech that some people find jackassy? What would it mean to say, "I defend the right of people to speak freely, as long as it is pleasant speech and the speaker is at all times a gentleman"?