Preserving the Pillars of Free Speech on Campus
Free speech is not merely an issue to be managed on college campuses; it is a defining feature of higher education and our nation. For the healthy survival of both, it must continue to be. Last week, I had the opportunity to provide opening remarks at the #SpeechMatters conference hosted by UC’s National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. This half-day conference convened journalists, artists, educators, and activists to discuss current challenges to free speech in these fields. I look forward to discussing free speech, particularly on college campuses, in the coming weeks when I’ll be interviewing UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman and Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky about their new book: “Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times.”
Below is an adapted version of my remarks:
The National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement is one of UC’s treasures. It’s a demonstration of the university’s public mission and of our responsibility to lead thoughtfully on some of the most pressing issues facing democracy and higher education. I love the name of today’s event—Preserving the Pillars—because free speech is a pillar of American universities.
We’ve all read about the decline in confidence in higher education. It’s pretty clear to me that perceptions of how colleges and universities are protecting, nurturing, and encouraging free speech—or not—are among key reasons for the decline. One of the most serious charges leveled against universities is that we do not truly value the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Some brush these criticisms aside as propaganda or red state issues. I think that’s a mistake. I am convinced we must demonstrate through our actions that we take our obligations seriously, that we recognize the fundamental role of free speech. It’s table stakes in rebuilding trust in higher education.
Now, I imagine that I am mainly preaching to the choir today. And not only that, but I see that later on the agenda there’s an opportunity for UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman to politely correct me, but I’m still going to say a little bit more about my thinking on free speech at universities.
Our campuses have to be places where ideas are expressed openly without fear or favor, and certainly without threats of violence. That’s a basic precept of liberal democracy, and it’s a pillar of higher education. The fundamental obligation of an academic institution is the unfettered pursuit of truth. Essential to that pursuit is the ability of individuals to develop their own ideas, to test them, to challenge each other, and to argue for what they believe.
It’s not always comfortable work. It was never intended to be. But a university can’t fulfill its mission by shielding individuals from ideas that are unwelcome or even offensive. It fulfills its mission by ensuring that those ideas are examined, contested, and, when appropriate, rejected through reasoned argument and evidence.
At the same time, conditions for that exchange matter. The university must be a place where people are safe and empowered, both intellectually and physically, to participate in that exchange. It cannot come at the expense of safety, and protests cannot mean preventing others from speaking or learning.
The responsibility we have is to sustain an environment where vigorous debate is possible because the rules that govern it are clear and consistently applied. This isn’t new. The protests of the 1960s, including the Free Speech Movement here at UC, forced American higher education to grapple more directly with enduring questions about speech and expression and the institutional responsibility.
In 1967, a faculty committee at the University of Chicago produced what was at the time a relatively unheralded document, the Kalven Report. Its central insight has gained renewed attention in recent years. It argued that a university fulfills its mission most effectively when all members of its community are free to question, debate, and dissent—a core idea that underpins the more recent Chicago Principles — which affirms the university’s commitment to free and open inquiry in all matters and to the broadest possible latitude for individuals to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. They make clear that while expression may be limited in narrow circumstances—such as threats, harassment, disruption of university functions—the institution should not shield individuals from ideas they may find unwelcome or deeply offensive.
I’m a fan of both documents. And as of today, over 120 universities across the country have adopted or endorsed the Chicago Principles. It’s an important first step to responding to the critique that we are indoctrinating rather than fostering inquiry. Preserving the pillars requires more than stating our commitment to free speech. It requires discipline. It requires consistency. It requires protecting the rights of speakers and the rights of protestors while making clear that protests cannot include silencing others. It requires defending freedom of speech and expression, not only when it’s easy, but particularly when it’s difficult.
This is why the work of the Center matters so much. Building on UC Berkeley’s historic association with the Free Speech Movement, the Center has helped UC and institutions across the country think more carefully and act more responsibly around expression, civic engagement, and democratic participation.
This conference has become an important national forum because the stakes are so high and the questions go directly to the functioning, not only of higher education, but of our democracy. We’ve faced uncertainty before, and we have endured by returning to first principles and applying them to changed circumstances. That’s certainly the case at universities. If we do that clearly, consistently, and with a shared sense of responsibility, we’ll not only preserve the pillars, but strengthen them.
I hope you’ll join me for the conversation with Chancellor Gillman and Dean Chemerinsky. Details to follow.