Turning College Into a No-Thought Zone

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-14/turning-college-into-a-no-thought-zone?utm_content=bufferaa208&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

by lsh123 • 12 years ago

110 64 12 years ago

bloombergview.com

rayiner2• 12 years ago

I think there is a real way forward on this issue. Not too long ago, Penn State abandoned its "free speech zone" policy in response to pressure. It was heartening to see the change greeted warmly by folks on both sides of the ideological rift: http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-come..., http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDa....

A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus....

An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/

venomsnake• 12 years ago

How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government hangouts)?

rayiner2• 12 years ago

The Bill of Rights only applies to state actors, and receiving money from the government does not, by itself, enough. Essentially, you have to be working as an agent of the government. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor.

Now, public universities are clearly state actors, and the First Amendment applies. For such organizations, free speech zones are based on the principle that certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public areas are Constitutional: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timepla.... It probably wouldn't have been considered a violation of the First Amendment, even in the founder's day, to charge someone with disturbing the peace for protesting in a residential area in the dead of night, even if they were standing on a public sidewalk.

Universities justify their regulations on "time, place, and manner" grounds, but often stretch that category too far: http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manne... It will be interesting to see further developments in this area. The Supreme Court recently struck down Massachusetts' law banning protests in a 35-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/sta....

[1] On the flip side there are other people who argue that university grounds are not public forums per se, but are rather private property that happens to be owned by the government. They argue that university campuses are more like a government office building than a public street in that regard. See: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar....

pdabbadabba• 12 years ago

The short answer is that the Supreme Court has held that restricting protests to particular places on campus is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction, so long as the regulation leaves open some reasonable place for protests and does not discriminate on the basis of the protesters' message. (This is based on the dubious, but now legally established, principle that "protesting" is a mode of speech and not also a message. Some on the court would have held -- right, I think -- that a law that discriminates against protestors inherently discriminates between speakers' viewpoints.) The wikipedia page is reasonably informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incide...

(Though is leaves out Frisby v. Schultz, the case that held that laws regulating protests can be content neutral, among many other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz)

Note also that it is not particularly relevant that an organization receives public funds. On the one hand, any school (or other organization) operated by a state is also subject to the federal constitution including the First Amendment (of course, this does not cover private schools). And on the other hand, I think your logic stretches too far: I reserve the right to kick you out of my dinner party because I don't like what you're saying. I receive "federal funds" in the form of various tax breaks. If I do actually kick you out, have I violated the First Amendment? I hope not.

The usual rule is that only the government itself (at any level -- or its agents, under certain circumstances) can violate the First Amendment (and almost all of the other amendments, with the notable exception of the 13th). I think it's probably better this way.

thesimpsons10223• 12 years ago

I think anyone who pays tuition at the university should have free speech anywhere, but people who are just random(crazy religious people and abortion activists) should be restricted.

cryoshon• 12 years ago

The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of free speech, but it's here.

Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.

stcredzero10• 12 years ago

I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.

seanflyon3• 12 years ago

People "drowning you out" is not a limit on your free speech, It only limits you right to be heard. A private website is like a private restaurant, you are free to speak, but If people don't like what you say the owner is free to demand that you leave.

uncoder0• 12 years ago

Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

davidp• 12 years ago

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [0] This case illustrates one of the permanent forces to guard against: Well-meaning people routinely make shortsighted decisions to address a problem, at the expense of things that are far more important.

None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs.

[0] http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-...

dragonwriter2• 12 years ago

Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's?

In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo.

I thought this fight had already been won.

Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1]

Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.

Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

spodek• 12 years ago

“The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report.

That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.

The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.

The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.

“Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"

Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.

sliverstorm• 12 years ago

Just because you have a right to say what you want, doesn't mean other people have to listen to you.

without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions

IMO this is the key part. You have a constitutional right to say what you want. You don't have a constitutional right to shout it from the front of a lecture hall in front of my professor. (Just as a random example)

anigbrowl3• 12 years ago

That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.

Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.

Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.

Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.

Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.

NoMoreNicksLeft• 12 years ago

Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.

If you did, the crime wouldn't be you speaking your mind... it'd be the breaking and entering.

And if you want to serenade me without trespassing, as annoying as that might be I don't see how I could stop you. By that, I mean I don't see how I could ethically petition the government to make you stop (even if they'd do this).

It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.

It's not the speech that would bother me, but the pitchforks.

People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken:

That (some) speech is capable of manipulating other people to do things they might not otherwise do.

Now, this isn't particularly controversial, and I don't think I'd dispute it (I might remain skeptical, but silently so).

If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.

autokad3• 12 years ago

I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is something else. obviously everything has limits

being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet.

thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.

gambiting• 12 years ago

I would equally defend their right to present their ideas, as I would defend your right to tell them to fuck off if they get in your face. You can't have freedom by limiting some else's freedom.

chaqke2• 12 years ago

most campuses do not have narrow, unavoidable choke points as gathering places to distribute pamphlets/flyers. in fact, the popular locations are often intentionally chosen to be large plazas.

you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".

pyre2• 12 years ago

What happens when your university decides to cut your pay, and you want to picket outside of the work place?

"Oh, you need to protest at this location 20 miles away where no one relevant will hear your message."

autokad3• 12 years ago

#1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. #3 protesting / picketing, etc are quite different than soliciting (even if they are ideas). theres a line in there somewhere, and a place and a time for both former and later. they are not without limits, and all a FSZ is sets some of that.

you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. see where you end up, heck, try it any government building. and thats 'public' property. universities are private property, and they do have the right to make decisions on how they see fit for creating the best environment for the campus.

guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses.

suprgeek• 12 years ago

In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them.

In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.

While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.

vezzy-fnord• 12 years ago

You mean like the ACLU?

ihnorton• 12 years ago

Isn't that the ACLU? (and perhaps the ACLJ?)

The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).

stcredzero10• 12 years ago

In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.

A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information.

I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman.

Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism."

Hooray for judging books by their covers.

If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.

anigbrowl3• 12 years ago

Very true. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-protest-causes-ma...

Loughla• 12 years ago

I think it all stems from a lack of understanding of subtlety in arguments. For example, when you watch mainstream news, all you see are the extreme points of an issue. You never really see the middle ground, and you never really see any rational arguments. You see either fire and brimstone, or puppies and sunshine.

Take climate change for instance. The only arguments that come up are that either (a) it's not happening, so go fuck yourself; or (b) WE'RE ALL GOING TO CATCH ON FIRE THEN DROWN AND IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. It's never; the world is headed in a direction that we may have control over, but even if we don't, we should probably try to do a better job than we've been doing.

I don't know when it started, but it seems that anytime an even remotely controversial issue comes up, we never see a rational explanation, it's always hyperbole and ridiculous nonsense. It's like people believe that every other human is mentally incompetent, and need to be shown the most extreme example that could possibly exist for an argument to be effective.

For good examples see global warming, immigration, and my recent favorite source of 'the sky is falling' hyperbole - CISPA.

Please note, I am neither endorsing, attacking, nor am I any other verb-ing the items I listed. I am simply saying that a majority of the arguments about those items come across as ham-fisted and ridiculous.

chaqke2• 12 years ago

This was a pretty cool example of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwys0dm_EA

(context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)

dkhar• 12 years ago

For a point of contrast:

I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups).

We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme.

Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it).

Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs.

[1] http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-...

peckrob• 12 years ago

When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area."

But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes.

Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them.

This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.

socrates1998• 12 years ago

College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the administrators decide to.

Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that.

Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say.

The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it.

No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.

personjerry• 12 years ago

This makes me glad I decided to go to Berkeley

NickWarner775• 12 years ago

There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

dobbsbob• 12 years ago

I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever cause it wasn't the end of the world.

kghose• 12 years ago

It's terrible here. Just terrible.

retroencabulato• 12 years ago

Reminds me of the documentary: Berkeley in the 60s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0

Turning College Into a No-Thought Zone

Related Stories