Is free speech in danger on campus? A conversation with Jonathan Zimmerman
“The recent spate of campus protests remind us that colleges (and their students) haven’t lost sight of this humanistic ideal.”
The university campus: Animal House, or epicenter of culture war? Many decry the “political correctness” of the academy and in college classrooms, and some attribute backlash against PC as one part of voter attraction to President-elect Donald Trump. But underlying this is the fundamental First Amendment first principle of American political culture: free speech, whether politically incorrect or not.
On the one hand, events at Yale and other schools offer evidence of a “glaring threat” to free speech. On the other, University of Chicago made waves when it communicated to students that “the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas” would not be infringed upon there, whether by trigger warnings, disinviting speakers, or safe-spaces. So what’s really going on?
Dr. Jonathan Zimmerman, author of “Campus Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know” (Oxford University Press, 2016), came to AEI in December to discuss “Campus politics: Free speech in universities” as part of Grand Opening Week. He answered some of my questions.
People have less practice in what is now called “face-to-face” dialogue. And social media allows them to “flame” in profoundly uncivil ways, which they probably wouldn’t do if they were conversing face-to-face.
What is the most important, least well-known fact about the American university system?
There are over 4,000 places to get a B.A. in the United States. And most of them look nothing like the colleges that you see on TV, or — if you’re from the upper middle class — like the one you attended. Those of us in that class assume that you start college when you’re 18, that you live as well as study there, and that you graduate in four years. But most of our students don’t fit those patterns at all. Half of all undergraduates attend community colleges, which are rarely residential and serve an enormous range of age groups.
How do behaviors and norms on the college campus come to influence society? Is it fair to compare it to trickle-down economics, or is a different dynamic at play?
It’s hard to know. Colleges are hugely different from each other, so I’m wary of generalizing about their influence. Surely, though, some colleges do affect our public dialogue. Consider the languages of microaggressions and trigger warnings, for example, which have entered the broader discourse largely (although not exclusively) because of events on campus.
Is it fair to say that higher education has always, by virtue of specific admissions procedures, been a form of social engineering? If yes, how would you characterize it today? Where does it do good, and what can it do better?
“Social engineering” is a loaded term that I try to avoid, because it connotes indoctrination. I don’t think any college is a brainwashing factory, churning out students who think and act exactly alike. But surely higher education influences (without determining!) the values that our young (and not-so-young) students imbibe. And to me, the primary value that our institutions teach right now is racial and ethnic diversity. That’s an enormous achievement, given the history of bigotry and exclusion that marks these institutions.
But it has sometimes led to an attenuation of free speech, which is particularly troubling to me as a historian. Throughout our past, free speech served as a weapon of justice for excluded populations. It’s sad and ironic that some of our campuses have pit free speech against racial and ethnic equality, losing sight of the many ways that free speech enhanced and protected equality across space and time.
The recent spate of campus protests remind us that colleges (and their students) haven’t lost sight of this humanistic ideal; surely the goal of diversity and multiculturalism aims to improve us as human beings.
American universities aim more than probably any university system in the world to be homes for students, as well as instructional and research institutions. Where did this come from? What dangers and advantages does it hold?
The classic residential pattern of American colleges reflected their emphasis on religious and moral formation: these institutions existed not simply to prepare people for vocations, but instead to mold them into “better” people. The recent spate of campus protests remind us that colleges (and their students) haven’t lost sight of this humanistic ideal; surely the goal of diversity and multiculturalism aims to improve us as human beings. I worry that we have sometimes lost sight of the free-speech and dialogical traditions that have also been key parts of that ideal.
We have seen much political unrest on college campuses across the country in the wake of the 2016 election. Can you put this activity in historical perspective? How does it compare to the free speech movement in the 1960s?
The key difference between protest then and now is the psychological idiom that has come to dominate contemporary campus politics: increasingly, demands are framed with respect to how they endanger individual psyches rather than how they might influence society writ large.
A second important difference concerns attitudes towards administration and bureaucracy. In the Port Huron Statement, the classic 1962 campus-protest manifesto, Tom Hayden called on students to “wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy.” Today’s students — even those who fashion themselves as “against” the administration — typically demand MORE of it: more diversity trainings, more support staff, more curricular requirements . . and more rules for student speech and behavior.
How has social media transformed the college experience?
That’s a huge question, and in some ways it’s too early to answer it. But I think a few trends are clear. First of all, despite the hype about “connecting” all of us, social media has made it harder to create truly civic connections and conversations. People have less practice in what is now called “face-to-face” dialogue. And social media allows them to “flame” in profoundly uncivil ways, which they probably wouldn’t do if they were conversing face-to-face. It has also made it harder — for all of us — to focus our attention on the things that really matter.
Political correctness on college campuses post-2016: Are there opportunities for change?
Absolutely. Although polls show that students are somewhat less devoted to free-speech ideals than they were in prior generations, there is still an enormous commitment to dialogue and exchange on our campuses. Our students want to talk with each other, and with us! What they need is practice in doing so. The first step is to turn off your smartphone and look — really look — at the people around you.
What other topics not mentioned here and/or discussed in your book did you hope to speak about at your presentation and panel, “Campus politics: Free speech in universities”?
The reaction to the elections! I don’t want the entire session devoted to that, of course. But we need to talk about the ways that the Trump victory was received on campus, and what the duties of our educational institutions should be at critical political moments like this one.
