Left-wing Attacks on Free Speech

Do you really think it's "as often" from the left as from the right? I don't mean that sarcastically, but sincerely - it can be hard to tell with just text, I know. I'm not looking for hard numbers, either - just your general feel for the issue.

I'm pretty left leaning, and I would definitly aggree that it comes equally often from both sides. The left usually codes their censorship under the guise of "political correctness," whatever that means.

I don't like "hate" speech, but "hate" can be a subjective term. As long as you're not inciting violence, free speech is free speech. When you leave it up to governments and universities to decide what THEY consider hateful, you put yourself in dangerous waters.

The problem arises in no small part from many universities being run these days by people whose major committment seems to be doing what will advance their careers and lead to changing the title on the door from Vice-Chancellor to Chancellor or Vice-President to President. The British had a marvelous term for such people in the 18th century. They called them "placemen." It was not a compliment.

In too many colleges there seems to be depressingly little committment to any principled defense of free speech or even to the broader notion of a university's being a place where the expression of ideas, even ideas passionately held and expounded, even ideas held to be reprehensible by some on campus or even by most on campus, is not only permitted but, if need be, encouraged.

Any steady reading of the higher education trades [e.g. The Chronicle of Higher Education] for a few years will provide many examples. And it comes from administrators suppressing [or trying to] ideas from all points on the political spectrum. Recall the Pennsylvania "water buffalo" incident, mis-managed by a university president later entrusted with management of the National Endowment for the Humanities. And just last week the president and board of supervisors of Florida Gulf Coast College I think it was cancelled a scheduled speaker and author appearing as part of the Freshman Year Experience program because, he said, he was concerned she might say something critical of President Bush. The cancelled speaker's book, which Frosh were to read before her talk, was an plea for civility in political discourse. And wasn't it the Georgetown administration that recently cancelled a planned Michael Moore appearance out of fear of controversy?

When Universities are [you should excuse the expression] "led" by administrators who believe their students are incapable of hearing a speaker without being able to draw their own conclusions about what they hear, without being in effect mentally or morally crippled for life by the experience, when they are "led" by administators who can be cowed into submission by the fear of public criticism that might affect their next job hunt,incidents like those routinely reported by FIRE [from whence Volokh got his information] will continue unabated.
FIRE has the right idea, and has been very successful forcing public universities and colleges to back down in these matters. FIRE does it by making clear to these time serving hacks who, somehow, managed to rise to great heights in academe without understanding what role free speech, free inquiry, and free expression play, and must play at any institution calling itself a university or college, that attempts at suppressing free speech will lead to more painful publicity and do more damage to their marketability as yet higher administrators than permitting it will.
Why, if this kind of suppression of speech isn't challenged on campuses, some day we may have a university-trained President of the United States who wants to limit free speech to fenced-in "free speech zones" during presidential appearances.
Oh, wait. We already do.....

A few observations from an academic at a large, public, quite diverse midwestern university. I should also add, in the interest of full disclosure and to place my comments in context, that my political leanings, to the extent I have any, tend to be toward the left on social issues.

First, the urge to try to suppress some kinds of speech is as powerful from the left as it is from the right. Both sides seek, more or less actively, to chill expression they view as "offensive." The problem, of course, is that the term "offensive" is so vague as to be almost meaningless, except perhaps at the extreme ends of the conduct spectrum. "Speech codes" like the one at issue here seek to equate "offensive" expression with harrassment or some other form of cognizable injury. At bottom, such codes are far too often thinly-disguised and poorly-crafted attempts to suppress what might be broadly characterized as political speech. They are attempts, in other words, to translate "I don't like your politics" into "You're harrassing me." But this is precisely the sort of conduct that the First Amendment was intended to protect. Again, we can exclude from this truly harmful expression -- that which, for example, incites violence or injury. I have no problem with "speech codes" to the extent they try to do that.

Some time ago, I was asked by a student to help the student (a member of the student government) draft precisely this sort of language for the University's speech code. I politely and tactfully declined. The notion of a code that is intended to restrict free expression is, frankly, offensive to me (see how meaningless that term is?). I have yet to see a speech code (and I've looked at lots of them) that was not, in my mind, subject to First Amendment attack on fairly solid grounds. They are so vague and overbroad as to encompass virtually anything that anyone might, for almost any reason, find offensive. Speech codes are a dangerous first step down the slippery slope of censorship. History teaches that once that first step is taken, it's difficult to turn back.

But it gets even worse. In declining to offer my help, I felt that I had to be very careful. Might my mere refusal to help draft the speech code cause others to view me as racist or bigoted? This issue actually factored into the calculus of how I responded to the student's request. And it is, in my mind, an indication of just how coercive and chilling the very idea of a speech code can be.

As to the case Ed wrote about, it truly is an example of a speech code run amok. Indeed, I think that the students who have been accused of violating the speech code have a stronger defamation claim than the UMass's speech code violation claim. From the FIRE letter to UMass:

In what is truly a landmark in shameful conduct, the Daily Collegian reports that a panel consisting of Vice Chancellor Gargano, SGA president Bustamante, and "distinguished faculty members" dubbed the attendees at the party "The KKK Nine."

The students, with FIRE's assistance, should go after UMass and those who made these statements very publicly. "Speech codes" like the one at issue will be the norm until universities learn that it is too expensive to have them. It will take a very public, very expensive, and very humiliating battle to create an example. I'm not suggesting that one case will turn the tide, but it will be a step in the right direction.

If you want to read some funny, i.e. fucked-up, stuff, try searching The Daily Collegian website. The UMass campus has gone nuts. Students have apparently arranged a mass protest and submitted "witness-statements" in an effort to punish nine of their fellows. What have they been witnessed to? Well they saw the pictures and were upset by it. I think I'm going to start filling witness statements against ugly people because their pictures upset me.

It makes me more angry when the "p-c" people oppress speach, because I think the left should be better than that.

Correction: in my post above, I said Georgetown U had recently cancelled a Michael Moore speech. Incorrect. It was George Mason U. My apologies. [Well, I knew there was a George in there someplace...]

The assertion that threats to free speech come as often from the left as from the right just kinda takes your breath away. In order for that to be true, there would have to be a 'left' in this country.

For example, there are at least thousands of 'Christian' schools across the country that censor their curriculum. Well, guess what, there is no 'Young Socialist Academy' in any phone book I've ever seen.

Thousands of shopping malls across the country prohibit free speech. Are they really balanced by a few natural foods co-ops where people will scowl fiercely if you use sexist language?

War industries, the military establishment, both political parties, the 'mainstream press'- all are huge institutions that most of the world would describe as right-wing, and this huge bloc of military-industrial complex is balanced by maybe 1% of the electorate who will vote for Nader, WHO IS NO LEFTIST. And all of these institutions remind their employees on a daily basis that there's no free speech when you're on the clock.

No, I just can't see how the left can be just as threatening to free speech as the right. Not in the real world, anyway.

Revise and extend...In Washington State the FBI is seeking the records of who checked out a book on OBL. Under the umbrella of the Patriot Act, if possibly not the actual law, they can take the person who checked the book out and put them in secret detention, hidden from family or lawyers, for what seems to be an indefinite period. This is just current events, and doesn't even consider the long FBI history of abuse.

And I'm supposed to balance my worry about this state of affairs with the reflection that some granola-crunching health-food zealot I knew in the 70s was equally humorless?

Even the solid right-wingers of Snohomish County know a crock when they see one. They're standing up to the FBI because they know that an out-of-control police state is a lot more dangerous than an organic farmer scowling at SUVs.

Something about a sense of proportion, I guess....

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. Why the presumption that the "attack on free speech" discussed in the FIRE press release was a "left wing" attack? Because it occurred at a university? Because it occurred at a university in Massachusetts? I live in Massachusetts, and I can clue you that I--a native midwesterner--would hardly consider more than a few of the Democrats who run the place here "left-wing."

Although I have somewhat admired Harvey Silverglate (who is affiliated with FIRE) in the past, I am really disappointed with the FIRE press release that Volokh mentioned. It is difficult to figure out what relevance the Tillman episode has to do with the issue discussed in the press release. The reason for the juxtaposition in the press release of the Tillman episode with this episode is more than a bit obscure.

Several points.

Point one. I have emphasized the fact that Volokh's post was based on a press release for a reason. In a press release, an interested party--in this case FIRE--spins the facts about a particular incident to favor its pre-conceived notions. I did a google search on the incident described in the press release and found very little. That suggests to me that the incident might not be as eggregious as the press release might suggest.

Point two. The sad fact is that sometimes one needs to sue if one wishes to validate what he or she believes to be his constitutional rights. People bitching and moaning about an issue in a press release doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Except, of course, to get the people some press mention.

Point three. As I mentioned, I have somewhat admired Silverglate. On the other hand, a few years ago, he and I engaged in an email interchange in which he indicated an objection to the advertiser boycott by gay people and others of the "Dr" Laura program. It struck me that he was OK with some people--broadcasters (radio station license holders, who hold licenses because of government dispensation) and their on-air "talent"--having free speech, but he objected when other people--the boycotters--exercised their free speech when they complained to the advertisers. I lost a lot of respect for him at that point.

Point four. Although I find Volokh's site moderately useful, the fact is that I am amazed at the reverence that some people on the internet seem to hold for him. A few years ago, he and I engaged in an email interchange after he posted a claim regarding the percentage of gay people in the population. He appeared to agree with obvious difficulties regarding his source, but subsequently posted the same figure without acknowledging the difficulties. As far as I'm concerned, that was somewhat fraudulent--particularly given that his site does not allow for comments. His site is useful, but the posts there should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

serial catowner-
I'm not terribly keen on arguing over labels, and that's really all it is. If you don't want to call it the "left", call it the "blicklfergen" if you'd like. The point remains the same, this is a threat to free speech and we need to respond to it before it reaches the level of what is going on in Canada.

I have emphasized the fact that Volokh's post was based on a press release for a reason. In a press release, an interested party--in this case FIRE--spins the facts about a particular incident to favor its pre-conceived notions. I did a google search on the incident described in the press release and found very little. That suggests to me that the incident might not be as eggregious as the press release might suggest.
I've read the reports in the campus newspaper, and there is nothing that contradicts the information in the press release at all. And as Volokh points out, it's a violation of free speech even if the student HAD made racist statements, though in this case he evidently did not. So I don't really see what there is that could be less egregrious about it. The university IS looking to punish 9 students solely for speech that some other students find offensive. That's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

>I've read the reports in the campus newspaper

More tomorrow (also on the post above) but it would be nice if you would post a link to a report in the campus newspaper.

This isn't to suggest that what you have posted is incorrect. It is, however, to suggest that it may be incomplete. There are numerous issues relating to this, few of which I have seen explored in anything that I would consider anything that I would consider "detail."

I know someone who goes to UMass-Amherst. The original post you linked to seems to have disappeared, Ed, but my understanding of the issue is that the students are being threatened with sanction both for drawing the picture and for being drunk on campus at the time, which is considered an offense since they were underage. The second charge may or may not have any validity (though it's hardly an expulsion-worthy offense in any case), but as for the first, it's absolutely ridiculous that this is even an issue in the United States. Haven't the people in charge at UMass ever heard of the First Amendment? You cannot be punished in America for expressing yourself in a way that others find offensive. (On a side note, I find equally ridiculous the fact that one of the students was accused of racism merely for opposing an ethnic quota on a student governing board.) I am a liberal through and through, but I'll be the first to stand up and fight when the political-correctness police come knocking on my door.

I am an atheist, and I maintain a website criticizing many aspects of organized religion. It now seems that if I attended college in Amherst, that would be an offense, and if I lived in Canada, it would probably be a crime. I think this goes to show how "hate speech" laws, no matter how well-intentioned, are destructive to everyone's ability to express themselves and antithetical to the principle of robust free speech that should be a core aspect of any philosophy that calls itself liberal.

I think you hit it right on the head, Adam. It may seem well intentioned to punish people for racist ideas, or sexist ideas because they are offensive or because they create tension. But once you grant that power to government, what is protected and what is not will perpetually shift with the party in power. Today, maybe we punish anti-gay speech. But tomorrow, it may be pro-gay speech. Or pro-atheist speech. And so on.

Thanks, Ed. As an addendum to my previous post, I'd like to add that I firmly believe these laws to be not just harmful, but wholly unnecessary: a healthy democracy, made up of informed and ethical citizens, has nothing to fear from any speech no matter how repugnant the message. If you find someone's message offensive, don't try to ban it; instead, use your right of free speech to explain why you disagree. If you are in the right and the other party is in error, there should be no need to worry.

This whole business of censoring speech deemed offensive implies that such speech is so dangerous that society cannot withstand it. To me, that seems like the logic of religious fundamentalists who lobby to remove from libraries books that they dislike, or try to replace comprehensive sex education with abstinence-only lesson plans. Do these people really mean to imply that their (or their children's) beliefs are so fragile that they will collapse upon their first exposure to differing viewpoints? I can't speak for the faith of others, but I think our democracy is stronger than that.