Stand on your Soapbox for the Good of Society
February 16, 2023
Freedom of speech is the most essential liberal value. A free society cannot exist without it, and yet it’s been under attack in the places it’s needed most: colleges.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit free speech organization which does First Amendment advocacy and litigation, recently released their 2023 college free speech rankings. FIRE reviews college speech codes and polls students, then gives them a score for how permissive or censorious the institution is.
This year, the University of Chicago tops the list with a “good” speech climate, as it has for many years. UChicago is the first out of the 203 ranked in tolerance for speakers, first in administration support for student speech, and 91st in intolerance of disruptive behavior. At the very end is Columbia University, with an “abysmal” speech climate.
It’s 177th in intolerance of disruptive behavior and 168th for comfort in expressing ideas. Georgetown University got a special mention in the form of a “Lifetime Censorship Award” for its mistreatment of law professor Ilya Shapiro in response to his criticism of Biden’s nomination of Kentanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court Justice.
The FIRE rankings highlight a terrifying trend in higher education, illiberalism. Not too long ago, in an era of civil politics, the law of the land was, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Still, today, in the era of politicization, radicalism, and intersectional theory, it seems to have taken a complete turn for the worst.
Instead of promoting the marketplace of ideas and simply moderating debate, higher education institutions have taken on the role of heavy-handed and extremely partisan censors. For anybody but the most ideologically committed progressives, a precarious line for when to speak your mind or stay silent must be navigated. Make a legitimate criticism of any member of a group deemed “protected” by the institution, and you might find yourself kicked out without any future prospects. Express an opinion contrary to the groupthink of the mob-like majority, and a hate campaign will rise up and destroy your social life.
More concerning yet is the overt double standard surrounding speech. Often when a progressive agitator makes legitimately offensive, racist, anti-semetic, or anti-LGBT remarks on campus, they are given a slap on the wrist or simply unpunished. Students protesting in the name of the liberation of Palestine are given a free pass to make anti-Semitic remarks and death threats.
Students protesting racial injustice are given a free pass to make racist anti-white remarks. Students advocating for subversive ideologies, like socialism, are given a free pass to deny horrific genocides like the Holodomor.
I’m not suggesting that we should espouse the exact opposite values and be radical Zionists, racists, or Holocaust deniers, as some progressives will no doubt try to claim. School speech policies should focus on moderating threats of violence and ad hominem attacks on other students based on impartially immutable characteristics.
Students and professors should be able to express their opinions without the threat of repercussions because the tyrannical majority took them in an unfavorable manner. After all, freedom of speech wasn’t intended to protect the rights of the majority, as they were never in danger; It was made to protect that of the minority.
If we don’t stand up to the totalitarian, illiberal plague pushed by progressive radicals, we can say goodbye to free speech and the marketplace of ideas. So I offer this advice to my peers who believe in classical liberal values: You will be gaslit, harassed, shouted down, slandered, and even assaulted. You will be outnumbered, but never, never allow yourself to be silent. If you are outnumbered three to one, speak three times louder.
If you are outnumbered six to one, speak six times louder. Let every insult and attack steel your resolve to speak your mind. Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and progressivism thrive off of the minorities’ fear of oppression. So be the Andrei Sakharov, Sophie Scholl, Liu Xiaobo, and Elizardo Sanchez of your own story.
“Radical Progressivist” • Feb 17, 2023 at 12:48 pm
Though I agree with the initial premise and believe that it started off string, this article does a stupendous job at constructing a straw man and pretending to be oppressed by it. Just as this author did in his gas stove article, the artifice of a totalitarian, repressive institution is built on the meager scraps from some sort of well-meaning cultural shift. While simply expressing right-wing views obviously is not the cause for punishment, truly hateful rhetoric, especially by people in lawmaking positions or other positions of power, incites violence against the groups they are othering. I find it absolutely disgusting that this article compares itself, the majority opinion in the historically right-wing town of Lake Forest, to actual activist such as Sophie Scholl. Get a grip.
Cole Clayton • Feb 18, 2023 at 9:13 pm
Reader,
Words are not violence, and the implication that they are is exactly the totalitarian mindset that I am trying to combat with this piece.
J • Feb 21, 2023 at 10:17 am
Intent matters. If you actively encourage a mob to hang someone, you are inciting violence. Precedent states that stating a desire implies a demand, especially if from an authority.
There’s also the matter of “fighting words”, which is speech recognised as serving no purpose but to incite a violent reaction. There is precedent that said speech isn’t protected.
You also run into libel, slander and other forms of defamation, but US law favors the defendant (the speaker). There are other exceptions to free expression(Copyright, CSAM, Classified information, etc.)
I believe that hate speech is morally unacceptable but should be legally protected. The law does not exist to further my ideals.