Campus free speech under extreme duress

University of Oregon students who claimed they were not violating the First Amendment in preventing the university’s president form speaking said since the repression came from students not the state, it was in itself an act of free speech.  Law professors Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky write that the so called “heckler’s veto” has no place in  a free speech country, “If audience members had a general right to engage in disruptive or threatening behavior by using loud, boisterous, or inciting speech, it would give any determined individual or group veto power over the expression of any idea they opposed. Only the most benign or inoffensive ideas would be expressible. It would empower people to believe, ‘If we can’t get the government to censor the speech, then we’ll do it ourselves.'” The professors observed that limits on the power of private citizens to censor played a vital role during the civil rights movement as judges prevented Southern officials from citing dangers of violence to stop speeches and marches. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 17, 2017)

A poll of students this fall showed that 19 percent think violence is justified in shutting down controversial speakers. Eight-one percent disapproved. But 51 percent of those polled agreed it was acceptable to disrupt a speech by shouting down the speaker. These result are significant, writes John Villasenor, who did the polling, “Students act as de facto arbiters of free expression on campus,” he writes. “The Supreme Court justices are not standing by at the entrances to public university lecture halls ready to step in if First Amendment rights are curtailed. If a significant percentage of students believe that views they find offensive should be silenced, those views will in fact be silenced.” (Brookings Institute, September 18, 2917)

For FAC Executive Director David Snyder’s views on campus free speech click here. For other FAC coverage click here.