by
John Stevenson
If
you think that freedom of speech is under assault on college campuses, you are
correct. But how widespread is that
assault? Is it just a tiny minority of
students and professors, or is it more serious than that?
A
Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, Professor John Villasenor, has studied
this issue. He designed and conducted a
survey of 1500 undergraduate students at colleges across the country. Only students who were U.S. citizens were
included, since foreigners could not be expected to be familiar with the
Constitution. Of the 1500 respondents, 46%
identified as Democrats, 17% Republicans, 29% Independents, and the remainder didn’t
know.
Villasenor
concluded that “freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S.
campuses….including many public campuses that have First Amendment
obligations.” Here are the highlights.
“Hate
Speech”: As long as it does
not involve “fighting words” likely to produce imminent lawless action, even “hate
speech” is protected by the First Amendment.
Villasenor asked “Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?” Fewer than half of the respondents thought it
did. This was true regardless of
political affiliation, although Republicans were more likely than Democrats or
Independents to think “hate speech” was protected.
Silencing
Controversial Speakers: A
narrow majority (51%) of students thought it was acceptable to silence a
controversial speaker “by loudly and continuously shouting” so that the speaker
cannot be heard. Republicans and Independents
disagreed but, taken as a whole, the respondents agreed this was acceptable.
Violence: A very large majority (81%) of all
respondents thought it is unacceptable to use violence to silence a speaker
with whom they disagreed. This was
generally true regardless of political affiliation. Villasenor points out we should not be too comforted
by this finding, because the reciprocal is that one student out of five thought
violence is appropriate: “It’s important to remember that this
question is asking about the acceptability of committing violence in order to silence speech. Any number significantly above
zero is concerning.”
Providing
Opposing Viewpoints: A large
majority (62%) of respondents erroneously thought that “compliance with the
First Amendment requires offering a counterpoint” speaker. Again, this was true of students regardless
of political affiliation. Villasenor
says: “respondents appear to be confusing good event design…with the completely
different issue of what compliance with the First Amendment requires.”
Learning
Environment: Respondents
were asked to choose whether colleges should provide “a positive learning
environment…by prohibiting certain speech” or should provide “an open learning
environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and
viewpoints.” Majorities of Republicans
and Independents chose the second option (allowing all viewpoints), but a large
majority (61%) of Democrats chose the first option (prohibiting certain
viewpoints). Villasenor writes: “in the
aggregate, the majority of students…prefer an environment in which their
institution…shelters them from offensive views.”
Villasenor
points out that colleges “are places where intellectual debate should flourish.
That can only occur if campuses are places where viewpoint diversity is
celebrated, and where the First Amendment is honored in practice and not only
in theory.” Villasenor concludes that
among students “there is a significant divergence between the actual and
perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms” and that “students have an overly
narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression.”
Finally,
here’s the scary part. As Villasenor
points out, “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal
trends. Today’s college students are tomorrow’s attorneys, teachers,
professors, policymakers, legislators and judges. If…college students believe,
however incorrectly, that offensive speech is unprotected by the First
Amendment, that view will inform the decisions they make as they move into
positions of increasing authority.”
This
is how poorly today’s college students (tomorrow’s Constitutional lawyers and
professors) understand the meaning and importance of the First Amendment. A dismal prognosis for the future of free
speech in America.
