It is about freedom of expression in an academic setting. And it is about the proper purpose of protest on a liberal arts college campus setting.
The first amendment includes many of our most precious freedoms and there is a reason they are together in one amendment â because they belong together and support each other. Freedom of speech and expression (including what you paint, sing, wear, etc.), freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Colleges and universities have traditionally viewed themselves as bastions of not only free speech but academic freedom. I find it worrisome that so many seem to be re-thinking those commitments.
FIRE says the following about the public/private distinction:
Note that FIRE has criticized Liberty University (and placed it on its 2019 âWorstâ list) for claiming to support free expression while practicing censorship in reality.
Oh. I wasnât aware that there is an acceptable definition of âproper purposeâ of protest. Or that itâs only a concern for liberal arts college campus settings. Iâm still confused whether we are talking about the constitutional right to freedom of speech (or any of the other rights) or if we are talking about another definition of them because the goal posts seem to keep shifting from post to post.
So, with that, Iâm out of this discussion. Especially before I say something snide and have it removed! LOL.
Have a great day though everyone!
@mom2twogirls : I am listening / reading your posts. I appreciate your point of view. This is a very difficult area even for federal judges.
I think that schools should look for guidance from various sources, but the legal decisions cannot be ignored whether it involves direct governmental action, quasi-governmental action or non-governmental action.
There is a lot to consider. Clearly our colleges & universities are not, and should not be, indoctrination camps. But it is unclear as to whether or not they should foster civil unrest.
This conversation veered off-topic from what I originally posed. I shouldnât be surprised, but I was hopeful. One key distinction, pointed out earlier, is that this speaker was asked to speak on a subject unrelated to his previously articulated distasteful, protestable views. Middlebury is going down the slippery slope of reviewing the entire body of an individualâs work, ideas, and even thoughts to determine if they are âworthyâ of appearing on campus. All this talk of scheduling another speaker with opposing views completely misses the mark, because he was not planning to speak on those views at all. Again, my viewpoint is that if the speaker were to go off on a tangent, then at that point you instruct him to stop or you remove him from the stage. Until then, you let things proceed.
To repeat my earlier point, to be consistent, I want to know if Middlebury will remove the books, music and movies of artists with distasteful views from campus. What about speakers who have been incarcerated? Or would it depend on the crime?
And, despite this long discussion, I am still undecided what to advise my daughter. She is fortunate enough to be in a position where she is likely to be accepted at approximately 99% of the colleges and universities across the U.S. In light of this, why should she choose Middlebury? Iâm honestly not sure, and this debate has not helped.
âShe is fortunate enough to be in a position where she is likely to be accepted at approximately 99% of the colleges and universities across the U.S.â
Then she has plenty of choices. And since you believe in free expression and since she is obviously a bright young woman, let your daughter decide on her college list without your influence/concerns. Itâs not like Middlebury students arenât get a great education. 
@Publisher âWhen one is not permitted to speak as an invited guest speaker on a college campus because of the anticipated content of that speakerâs speech, that is an infringement upon oneâs right of free speech.â
Not on a private college. If you are invited as a guest to somebodyâs home, they can remove you if they do not like what you are saying. If you buy a ticket to a play, they can remove you if you disturb the play.
You cannot ban what people say in public spaces, such as the quad of a public university. However a private college is a different story.
If all you read and see is right wing media, you get the impression that campuses have become these bastions of fanatic communists who randomly stop people and beat them bloody if they do not sing The International flawlessly, or cannot recite Das Kapital backwards, or something like that. In fact, colleges are firing more professors for expressing left wing views than for expressing right wing views. Moreover, faculty at public universities who express left wing views are much more likely to have government officials demanding that they be disciplined than faculty who express right wing views.
Here is a opinion piece on the topic: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/05/skeptical-academics-and-press-reject-koch-brothers-backed-claims-of-free-speech-crisis-on-campus-mic.html
A very good nonpartisan resource for the state of Freedom of Speech on campuses is âThe Free Speech Projectâ
https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/about
Another organization with which I do not always agree, but which I respect as being nonpartisan, is the Heterodox Academy heterodoxacademy.org.
@MWolf: The issue of free speech is much more complex than simply labeling a school as private or public as almost all private colleges & universities accept federal funds.
It can be argued that acceptance of federal funds by a college or university whether private or public places any action by that educational institution into a âquasi-governmentalâ category.
Your concerns are valid.
Welcome to Vermont.
Welcome to LACs in the Northeast.
@MWolf: Although I have not confirmed this recently, two colleges refuse any federal funding, including federally backed student loans, in order to escape restrictions & mandates imposed upon âgovernmental actionâ. Those colleges are Hillsdale College in Michigan & Grove City College in Pennsylvania.
@RayManta: If you are seeking yes or no answers to your questions, then you are going to be disappointed. Your post & the actions of Middlebury College students, faculty & administrators raise complex issues to which there are no easy answers.
When I read this op-ed piece, I immediately thought about this thread. As the world becomes more partisan/close-minded and there is a movement away from freedoms, such as the freedom of expression through the press discussed in this op-ed piece, it is more important than ever that colleges help students learn to listen to different viewpoints, form their own opinions and arguments based on what they learn, and respond using their own freedom of expression.
I cannot believe that a huge percentage of people believe the press is the enemy of the people! That argument from the people polled on the right, along with the anti-speech arguments from some students on the left, show that large numbers of people across the political spectrum really would prefer authoritarian leadership to our current system of democracy and the protections of individual freedom within it. Scary!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/opinion/trump-free-press.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
The press isnât the enemy of the people, but a significant part of the press has become the propaganda arm of one political party or the other. They will continue to âreport the newsâ, but the portion of the press that has intentionally tried to mislead people over and over again has rightfully lost their power to influence people.
Learning to filter out the propaganda and apply critical thinking to current events will grow ever more important for todayâs students as it is very easy to passively accept the constant information feed that is streamed at them 24x7.
@tpike12 I couldnât agree more. All students need to be taught to apply a healthy dose of skepticism without cynicism to everything they hear, regardless of the source. Statistics may need to be required at every college. Somehow the essential value of critical thinking has been forgotten from the American college curriculum and been replaced with indoctrination.
@Publisher However, the next question would be, does a quasi-governmental status change the status of the shared spaces at these colleges from private space to public space? My uninformed opinion is that it does not, though it is uninformed, so if somebody with more knowledge corrects me, I will accept their correction.
However, even if it is public space, there is another issue, which I do not think has been made explicit, which is the issue of harassment. Use of racially derogatory terms by faculty, staff, and students is accepted as constituting harassment, which is prohibited on campus. So, does banning the use of racial epithets by students and faculty constitute a limitation on their freedom of speech? Evidently not, otherwise laws regarding harassment would have been overturned long ago. That would mean that use of racial epithets by students and faculty can be banned, as they would constitute harassment of members of the groups at which they were aimed.
Middleburyâs harassment policies prohibits conduct that is is, among other things, based on an individualâs sexual orientation. Iâm sure that most people would agree that a faculty member using racial epithets against students, other faculty, or anybody else would be considered âharassmentâ. However, is the use of such epithets by a faculty member outside of the classroom covered by that? On one hand, it did not happen on campus, on the other hand, could people of the group against who the epithet was used consider that they would be treated fairly by this faculty member? This would therefore likely violate the part of Middleburyâs policy, since it undermines the educational performance of these individuals. Same with other students, or anybody else who works for Middlebury and has agreed with these policies.
Now, comes the big question: does inviting a speaker whose academic and political career has been, to a good extent, based on attacks on LGBTQ rights, constitute âharassmentâ? Or, more generally, does inviting a person, who is mostly known for one of their opinions, to speak, constitute an agreement with that opinion, or an agreement that this opinion is a valid point? If it does, and if that opinion is that members of a protected group are inferior, should have fewer rights, should be suppressed, etc, would the invitation of this speaker be considered âharassmentâ? Not on part of the speaker themselves, but on part of the people who invited the speaker.
Basically, if a certain conduct is prohibited on campus, wouldnât requesting and likely paying somebody else to behave that way still be prohibited? Does inviting somebody to speak constitute a tacit agreement with the public opinions for which they are most known?
PS. Iâm not posting these as rhetorical questions, BTW, even though I have my own opinions, but I am genuinely interesting in knowing other peopleâs opinions.
Middleburyâs Harassment policy (for reference):
@MWolf: The harassment you describe appears to be directed at a specific person or group of people in an effort to intimidate.
A guest speaker invited by academics to speak on certain issuesâwhether distasteful or notâdoes not seem to constitute the type of intimidation envisioned by anti-harassment policies or rules.
@MWolf: In order to answer whether or not quasi-governmental status of an educational institution changes the characterization of a private space to a public space with respect to constitutionally protected rights is a very fact specific situation. This is one reason why courts do not address hypothetical cases. There must be an actual case or controversy in order for federal courts to get involved assuming that other âstandingâ requirements are satisfied by the litigant. (This can & does differ, however, in state courts.) But simply putting forth a hypothetical issue based on federal question jurisdiction will not get oneâs case accepted by a federal court. Need an actual case or controversy with very specific facts.
@MWolf: In order to constitute harassment, a person would have to make a direct attempt to intimidate a specific person or group of individuals. Merely speaking on a controversial topic in a hateful manner is not enough to constitute harassment.
If the situation were as you suggest, then members of opposing political parties would be engaging in harassment when speaking at political rallies. But, if the political speaker suggested that listeners find politician x & do harm to that politician, then you would have improper & illicit behavior. But merely stating that members of a particular political party or those holding a specific belief are wrong & causing harm to society is protected speech.
Ironically, the harassment in the Middlebury College situationâif any existsâwould be against the invited speaker. Reread Middleburyâs policy statement against âharassmentâ with the invited political speaker in mind as the victim of harassment.
@Publisher I may not have made myself clear, but I am not saying that the speaker is harassing anybody. They are not students of faculty, and even if they do engage in hate speech, they are gone, so they, in themselves, are not creating any type of atmosphere.
The question is whether the person inviting the speaker is harassing the people who are targeted by the speaker. If a speaker is known for calling to kill all the Jews, is inviting this speaker the same as supporting them, and essentially saying âwe, the people who invited this speaker, also believe that all Jews should be killedâ?
Enough people have been fired for expressing racist/misogynistic/etc expression at their work to demonstrate that freedom of speech does not protect people who are harassing coworkers or other students. The question, is, again, does inviting a person who is known for harassing to be a speaker on campus, also constitute harassment?
For the same reason that speakers cannot be considered as harassing, they cannot be considered as being harassed. They are not workers or students of the place to which they were invited to speak. They can bring charges of verbal or physical assault, if these occur, but not harassment. If they are paid for their talks they may also bring charges of lost wages, I would guess. Political rallies cannot be considered harassment since they are are not creating an unsafe workplace or place of education. Moreover, a person would need to follow them to be subject to their verbal attack.
@MWolf: Those who invited the speaker to campus do not control the speaker or his words. The speaker is an independent contractor, not an agent of the person or group who invited the speaker to campus.
What constitutes harassment or inciting others to riot can be and is very different in the US than in an area of the world where acts of terrorism are quite common & where there is a perpetual state of war.
P.S. I also ask you to consider the effect of inviting a controversial speaker to campus who might address potentially incendiary issues. For example, this can be a tactic for creating unity by those close to the issue or issues.