Free Speech on University Campuses
Introduction
Freedom of speech is an aspect of the American society that receives protection from its constitution. The constitution of the USA, under the First Amendment, stipulates that the Congress or government must not make any law “abridging the freedom of speech” of its people, press, or their right to assemble peacefully (Lunenburg). However, not all speech enjoys the protection of the First Amendment. According to Oluwole, many court rulings throughout American history have singled out certain forms of speech, which threaten the social welfare of others, as unprotected by the constitution. One such speech is “shouting fire” in an arena full of people with the intent of causing a reaction despite the lack of fire. The phrase “shouting fire” has been in use in many court cases to adjudicate the intentions of the speaker since it first immerged in the Supreme Court case of Schenck v United States (ACLU). The court ruling argued that such speech amounted to “fighting words” whose intent is to provoke a physical reaction from the audience, which may lead to harm. Therefore, several court rulings have reaffirmed the initial ruling that fighting words are part of unprotected speech, which the government can censor.
The incorporation of fighting words as censorable speech opened the debate on whether university administrations can enact some form of censorship on varsity speech. In a landmark court case between Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, the courts determined that administrations had the authority to impose censorship on any school-sponsored project based on bias, prejudice, bigotry, or errored content. However, the issue of speech censorship has continued to fuel intense debates among stakeholders on campus affairs. On the one hand, advocates for speech censorship on campuses, such as Soutphommasane, argue that the liberal values of freedom of speech must consider its multiculturalism and political correctness with the audience. Soutphommasane explains that the harm principle allows institutions to censor speech, which may cause “direct infliction of harm” on others. However, Semley refers to Northrop Frye’s statement on universities as institutions of experiment, reason, and imagination, which must maintain “infinite patience with stupidity, malice, and ignorance” of contributors. Semley describes how the reversal of afflicted and afflicting parties in the debate on varsities’ freedom of speech has continued to highlight the need for this freedom for all. This paper will delve on Immanuel Kant’s philosophies regarding the role of universities, the benefits of free speech on campuses, and the drawbacks of free speech absolutism. Also, the paper will review Semley’s ideas on the kind of liberalism that campuses should adopt to promote academic freedom.
Immanuel Kant’s Ideas Regarding the Role of Universities
Immanuel Kant was one of the most influential philosophers of the eighteenth century. According to Semley, Kant believed that philosophy should be left free to pursue ideas without government interference. In his book The Conflict of the Faculties, Kant argued that institutions of higher education should endeavor to attain academic freedom. He viewed academic freedom as the attribute that distinguished philosophy as the most honorable doctrine in higher education. Kant founded his ideas of philosophy from what he believed constitutes the role of the university and other areas of free discourse. He addressed these roles in an essay, which evaluated the meaning and constitution of enlightenment.
In the essay “what is enlightenment?” Kant reviews the role that free speech plays in both public and private spheres (Cowherd). The author begins the essay be defining enlightenment as “human’s emergence from a self-imposed minority” (Kant). He argues that the minority results from the ineptness of human beings to guide their understanding without help. Kant believed that human beings require guidance from others to develop enlightenment. Additionally, he argued that this guidance could only occur through engaging in free discourse. However, the author defined two types of free discourse, which are within private and public spheres.
The private sphere encompasses the professional life that requires one to accomplish certain civic duties to humanity (Cowherd). One the other hand, the public sphere encompasses all social aspects of society. Kant believed that enlightenment in the public sphere occurs slowly (Kant et al.). He also believed that institutions of higher learning embodied public spheres. In his essay, Kant argued that supporting the enlightenment of public spheres required the free use of people’s reason. Therefore, first, Kant held the idea that universities are institutions of public discourse. The second notion held by Kant was that universities are responsible for enlightening their society. Finally, he believed that those participating in public discourses must maintain freedom of reason. Therefore, the role of the university is to enlighten its society through the participation of free-reasoned persons.
The Benefits of Free Speech/ Academic Freedom on Campuses
Allowing freedom of speech in universities will lead to several benefits. First, it promotes freedom of thought for everyone on campuses, which helps students develop their individuality. Students enroll in universities to gain a better understanding of themselves as much as they gain knowledge of theorems. Therefore, allowing students to have freedom of thought empowers them to seek a better understanding of their sense of identity.
The second reason universities should maintain freedom of speech is that it helps participants of public discourse develop into enlightenment for society. By allowing students to engage in curious debates that question the very foundations of societal principles, universities develop an environment that allows for the improvement of these principles. Additionally, freedom of speech on campuses protects the rights of a persecuted minority. Speech censorship in universities is a form of oppression against the minority who hold different opinions from the rest. However, such censorship does not authenticate the correctness of either opinion. Therefore, it is a form of oppression, which defies the exact reason for censoring campus speech.
The Drawbacks of Free Speech Absolutism on Campuses
Maintaining freedom for all sorts of speech on campuses may have several setbacks. First, it may promote muscular liberalism that only intends to oppress the minority. Muscular liberalism includes oppressive speech whose intention is to undermine the sense of identity of others. Allowing speech absolutism may emasculate the university’s ability to protect all its students. Secondly, maintaining freedom of speech will eventually censor those who are not vocal in the university. By allowing free speech absolutism, universities will promote the heckling down of the minority group or those with lesser ability to be vocal. Therefore, free speech absolutism will eventually lead to the oppression of a silenced group whose views drown in their opponents’ jeering.
Also, free speech absolutism will promote a lot of non-factual discourse, which may undermine the university’s capacity to enlighten its society. It is the role of the university to promote factual enlightenment of its community. However, free speech absolutism will give room from errored and bias speech to influence the public discourse. Such errored speech will eventually deteriorate the enlightenment of society.
John Semley’s Compromise For Free Speech on Campus
Semley believes that universities have two vital roles towards the students. First, he argues that campuses provide a home where students can gain mutual recognition. The author believes that students enroll in universities to gain better self-identity and understanding of others’ identities. The second role of the university is to create a marketplace for ideas. Semley believes that students gain new ideas by engaging others in free thoughtful debates. However, Semley argues that these two roles cannot exist mutually exclusive of each other. Therefore, he argues that the university must have the freedom to allow both roles to coexist, which requires a compromising coexistence of each role.
Conclusion
Immanuel Kant’s philosophical analyses of the role of universities determine that they are areas of public discourse. Kant argued that it was the role of these public domains to shape the enlightenment of society. However, he maintained that achieving this objective necessitates that the university must promote the free reason of its participants. In Semley’s article, the author highlights the history of the struggle for freedom of speech within campuses. He highlights that universities have become a battlefield of cultural wars. He also maintains that the current struggles around freedom of speech represent cyclic unending disputes between advocates of academic freedom and anti-oppression. In my opinion, universities must promote freedom of speech within the institution, which promotes positive discourse. However, I also believe that such freedom should consider the cultural values of the audience. In my opinion, freedom of speech begins at the discussion of cultural values. Cultural and political correctness should not be the reason to censor speech. These values should instead promote free thought within the campuses. By engaging in extensive discussions regarding students’ cultural and political views, only then will universities promote free reason in student discourse.
Works Cited
ACLU. “Speech On Campus.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2019, https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Cowherd, Marianne. “You Kant Tell Me What To Do: The Rights And Obligations Of Campus Protests”. The Stanford Freedom Project, https://stanfordfreedomproject.com/what-is-freedom-new-essays-fall-2015/you-kant/. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Goldberg, Erica. “Free Speech Consequentialism”. Colum, vol 116, 2016, pp. 739-743., https://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/April-2016-7-Article-Goldberg.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Gonzalez, Susan. “Legal Scholar on Free Speech Matters.” YaleNews, 2017, https://news.yale.edu/2017/04/06/legal-scholar-speaks-about-why-free-speech-matters. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Jacoby, Jeff. “In Academia, Free Speech Is Out And Speech Codes Are In.” Jeff Jacoby, 1998, http://www.jeffjacoby.com/11018/in-academia-free-speech-is-out-and-speech-codes. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Kant, Immanuel, et al. “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment”. Kant’s Political Writings, 1993, p. 54., https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/CVSP/Documents/Fall%202017-2018/Fall%202017-2018/Kant–What%20is%20Enlightenment.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Kant, Immanuel. Answering The Question: What Is Enlightenment?. Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing, 2019.
Lunenburg, Fred C. “Do Constitutional Rights To Freedom Of Speech, Press, And Assembly Extend To Students In Schools?”. Focus on Colleges Universities and Schools, Vol 5, no. 1, 2011, http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.%20Do%20Constitutional%20Rights%20to%20Freedom%20Extend%20to%20Students%20Focus%20V5%20N1%202011.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Oluwole, Joseph O. Censorship And Student Communication In Online And Offline Settings. IGI Global, 2015.
Russomanno, Joseph. “Speech On Campus: How America ‘S Crisis In Confidence Is Eroding Free Speech Values”. Hastings Constitutional Law, vol 45, no. 2, 2018, https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2056&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Sanchez-Sosa, Juan Jos’e, and Salomon Lerner-Febres. “Academic Freedom And Social Responsibility”. Higher Education Policy, vol 15, 2002, pp. 385 – 390., https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/48952149/s0952-8733_2802_2900026-020160919-31287-18gf1y8.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAcademic_freedom_and_social_responsibili.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200312%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200312T144836Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=84611d3e1f0997d9cbbf78322e9665d73ae3f5bd274d85d86299d6288e533d87. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Semley, John. “Are University Campuses Where Free Speech Goes To Die?”. The Walrus, 2019, https://thewalrus.ca/are-university-campuses-where-free-speech-goes-to-die/. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Soutphommasane, Tim. “Liberalism, Harm, And The Limits Of Free Speech”. AQ: Australian Quarterly, vol 78, no. 5, 2006, p. 33. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/20638427. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
Supreme Court. Hazelwood School District V Kuhlmeier. Vol 484, 1988, p. 261.