Challenges to the Freedom of Speech on College Campuses

Background and History

When the constitution of United States was laid in the year 1769, one of the rights that were cherished by the most Americans was the freedom of speech. This right was incorporated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which gives all Americans the freedom to criticize the government and speak what comes to their minds without fear of being punished or persecuted. In general, the whole idea of freedom of speech might seem rather simple, however, in reality, it consists of many more complications than one thinks. There are some limits which cannot be crossed in particular types of speeches. In 1919, the Supreme Court declared in the case Schenck v. the United States that people are not eligible to speech that presents a “clear and present danger” to society. Nevertheless, 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court declared that even provocative speech, for instance, racist language by a leader of the Ku Klux Klan (a white supremacist hate group), should usually be protected unless it is likely to cause impending violence. From the 1930s onward, largely in response to fears generated by Communism, the University-wide administration imposed numerous rules designed to keep politics off of all the University campuses. By the time Berkeley Chancellor Clark Kerr became University President in 1958, student groups could not operate on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral or protest. As a result, the free speech movement came into being which was a student-led movement that took place in the 1960s on the campus of University of California, Berkeley in order to acknowledge the student’s rights to free speech and to establish the right to express their view on political activities. That day, Jack Weinberg, a Congress of Racial Equality student activist, was arrested for handing out leaflets on campus in defiance of a campus ban on political activity. This movement was influenced by the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement. Various attempts were made by the civil authorities and the powerful interests to contain the movement: harassing trials, biased news reporting, job intimidation, etc. But the attempts were unsuccessful, the movement grew, became more sophisticated, and began exploring other fronts on which it could attack the power structure. Comment by Saadiya: Plagiarized. Needs to be paraphrased or should be put in double quotes. Comment by Saadiya: Plagiarized. Needs to be paraphrased or should be put in double quotes.

Overview

Universities are not just a hub to transmit knowledge. It is also a place where the students are given the opportunity to interpret, examine, explore and finally expand the knowledge by testing the old and proposing the new ideas. In this process, views are exchanged which seem to be controversial, wrong or even distasteful. Campuses that are free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. Recently, more universities have opted to become diverse by attracting students and faculties that were once excluded or underrepresented. By showing intolerance towards these people will undermine the confidence of the new members of the community. Due to verbal assault and the use of hateful language some universities felt the need for restricting the use of speech. Students who have been victims of such assaults argues that academic majority of both the majority and the minority will suffer. These days universities are requested to shield targets of offensive language such as sexually abusive words or even other political affiliation, Firstly, board members should be well informed about the rights established by the First Amendment, and its principles, and how they apply to the campus’s commitment to freedom of speech.

The service of the governing body of the higher educational institutions has always necessitated the understanding of campus climate and culture. Today this service of the governing body has taken on heightened expectations. Balancing board engagement and leadership with appropriate oversight and respect for higher education’s inherent values of shared governance and delegated authority can be challenging, and the path forward is at times unclear. Perhaps most essential to effective board governance is a board’s awareness of the impact its policy decisions.

Secondly, boards should ensure that policies that clarify campus freedom of speech rights are reflective of institutional mission and values. Colleges and universities are communities that are committed to learning and the perpetuation of societal values. A policy will provide clarity for all institutional stakeholders if it recognizes these core values; is consistent with federal, state, and local law; and demonstrates the governing board’s commitment to freedom of speech.US Supreme Court precedent establishes that the rights provided by the First Amendment must be protected at all public colleges and universities. While most private institutions accept that First Amendment principles are at the core of freedom of speech, these institutions are not legally bound to require adherence to those principles absent some other applicable law or policy.

Thirdly, governing boards should make clear their support of presidents in the implementation of campus freedom of speech policies. Governing boards must be clear in their delegation of authority for the implementation of those policies to campus and system leaders. In a time when news spread through social media, presidents must be confident that they can depend upon the board support as they respond to the challenges that arise. Presidents, in turn, should keep their boards informed as campus speech issues arise; however, the mandate for action might preclude immediate reporting to the board. As appropriate, the president should remain in contact with the board chair as events unfold. The president should review campus issues and crises with the board at either regularly scheduled board meetings or, if necessary, in special sessions of the board.

Recent Developments

When Trump became president in 2016, the governing office became a republic led with most of the houses constituting the Republicans. As a reason, a study was conducted in 2016, sponsored by Knight Foundation, the American Council on Education, the Charles Koch Foundation, and the Stanton Foundation surveyed 3,014 U.S. college students, including an oversample of 216 students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). While many U.S. college students showed strong support for the First Amendment, there were many who also approved there should be a limit on speech where diverse perspectives are respected. These competing views and habits can influence the freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees. Most college students continue to view First Amendment rights as secure rather than threatened, this number has dropped since 2016.

Many conservative students across the United States have been suffering from all kinds of verbal and physical assault, social ostracism, and even academic persecution because for voicing their view on political subjects. Hayden Williams is a student who is also a conservative activist was attacked by two men on the grounds of UC Berkeley while he was recruiting students for Turning Point USA. Williams is also a representative of the Leadership Institute, an organization that helps train conservative leaders. Apparently, Williams was not a UC Berkeley student. Williams further commented that some students were upset when he displayed at the recruitment table which said, “Hate Crime Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims”-a reference to 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett, who has been accused of staging what he maintains was a hate crime against him. One of the students claimed that Williams was promoting violence and proceeded to take out his aggression on Williams. This was not the first time such an incident that took place in UC Berkeley. Following this President Trump cited William’s case during one of his to the gatherings.

As a result, earlier in 2019, President Trump promised the country to issue an executive order guaranteeing free speech on campus which does not make dramatic changes. The order directed 12 agencies to make federal grants, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, so as to ensure that colleges are complying with the law and have their own policies to promote free inquiry and debate. In addition, Trump also announced that he would be making federal funding for universities contingent on assurances of free speech. However, the new order was a shock to some people since federally funded research could be vulnerable to political influence. However, some remained indifferent to the order and claimed that this would make no significant difference.