Free speech student survey shows web of contradictions: Students rate their groups highly on openness, but feel chill in the air on freedom to speak freely on campus
Knight Foundation recently released a report on the state of free speech on college campuses, which found that students have strong support for the First Amendment, though some say diversity and inclusion are more important to a democracy than free speech.
The Gallup-Knight Foundation survey on free expression makes clear that lines are being redrawn over free expression on campus, especially if seen as insulting and prejudicial. Half the students polled favor speech codes or codes of conduct that restrict offensive or biased speech on campus that would be permitted in society more generally. The notion of the campus needing its own seismograph as to speech and sensibilities seems to be growing.
Free expression has long been an academic cornerstone. Of late, tensions on campus over free speech, controversies over their resolution, as well as incidents of violence, make this survey update interesting and timely. While campus controversies on free speech existed long before President Trump took office, his feverish rhetoric has put a charge in the atmosphere. So, too, does the strain of partisanship and a national habit of many who listen only to news and opinions with which they agree.
Depending on your point of view, the survey results are either reassuring or disturbing.
Are we to be reassured by the 60 percent who think shouting down a speaker is unacceptable, or do we worry about the 40 percent who think it is sometimes acceptable? So, too, do we credit the 72 percent who think it is wrong to disinvite a speaker or focus on the 28 percent who see a reason to do so? Or do the 70 percent who think colleges should not be able to restrict expressing political views that are upsetting or offensive to some speak to the security of free expression, or do the 30 percent that approve the need for such policies point toward its erosion?
While the poll shows a lessening in student confidence that free speech is secure, there is strong acceptance for expressing dissent and disagreement by means such as distributing pamphlets, and holding protests against speakers.
“The notion of the campus needing its own seismograph as to speech and sensibilities seems to be growing.”
There is a certain irony in the response to the question of whether students support professional athletes protesting during the National Anthem. Eighty-one percent did. Students know that such actions offend the deeply held beliefs of many. Yet the cause is right and the manner of doing so in silence has its dignity. So, even if offending some, the large majority feels this act of protest deserves protection as free expression. Does that suggest offending may not be a good or conclusive criterion for limiting free expression?
That’s just one of the contradictions that abound in many of the survey’s findings. For example, high rankings were given to almost all campus groupings (political conservatives ranked the lowest) in terms of being able to openly and freely express their views. At the same time, well over half the students said that the climate on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find offensive.
In all this, students’ feelings play a part. Asked about feeling uncomfortable in any part of campus because something that was said, whether directed at them or not, as to a student’s race, ethnicity or religion, 25 percent of students answered yes, as did 45 percent of black students at other than at HBCU, the other large divergence among student answers. Talking and listening to those who have had this experience, or have an anxiety that it might happen, as well as being sensitive to speech that stirs emotions about one’s group identity, may give us more understanding about views toward hurtful, insulting or threatening speech. And perhaps why the argument for protecting free speech may be losing its hold on campus.
A new element in free expression on campus is technology. The anonymous shield and the abstraction of social media are seen by many students as having pernicious effects in terms of the incivility of dialogue, the ease of saying things anonymously (the internet is seen as a source of hate speech), and as stifling free expression because of the fear of being shamed or attacked. The ease with which disagreeable views can be blocked or clicked off was cited as another way free expression is dampened.
Might the blocking habit carry over to shouting down a speaker who offends? Rather than just walking away or not attending or standing in protest, actions may be taken that while akin to clicking off are not private individual actions. Shouting down or preventing a speaker or disinviting one is public behavior that suppresses speech in that no one gets a chance to hear it.
“A new element in free expression on campus is technology. The anonymous shield and the abstraction of social media are seen by many students as having pernicious effects in terms of the incivility of dialogue…”
Candid discussions will go far toward achieving a campus commitment both to the vital diversity of its students’ backgrounds, and traditions of unbounded intellectual inquiry and vigorous free expression.
This survey provides powerful results but there are ways that future versions of the survey can provide greater enlightenment.
- Why poll only full-time undergraduates when 40 percent of students are part-time? Why not include sampling from junior and community colleges, as well from professional and graduate schools, to complete the campus universe?
- Is there a way to gauge the attitudes and influence of the faculty, who are so much a part of the identity and character of a campus? And as connecting to the past is at the heart of a college’s purposes, to take up the role alumni play?
- And are there questions that will better illuminate the relationship between diversity and inclusion and free speech? Might students who see acceptability in suppressing speech be asked about their reasoning? Questioning could usefully be directed toward whether there is agreement that to allow speech is not approve it, that to condemn speech is different from suppressing it, and that we have a duty to foster resilience in our students.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson gave a classic explanation of free speech: “The very essence of constitutional freedom of press and speech is to allow more liberty than a good citizen will take. The test of its vitality is whether we will suffer and protect much we think is false, mischievous and bad, both in taste and intent.” Williamson v. United States (1951).
That opinion dealt with Communists during another troubled era in our history. How would its reasoning be met today?
Steven Isenberg was a newspaper publisher, university president, professor, and NYC mayoral chief of staff. He is an honorary fellow of Worcester College, Oxford.
