Affirmative action
Affirmative action by state
Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
Campaign finance by state
Nonprofit regulation
Note: Much of the information on this page is historical; it was current as of March 2016. To learn more about current developments relating to free speech on college campuses, see the news feeds below.

Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, colleges and universities implemented speech and student conduct codes designed to limit forms of expression that were considered to be harassing or offensive. Proponents argued that these policies helped foster more tolerant and welcoming learning environments for students, contributing ultimately to a fairer, more equitable society. Critics, however, alleged that these policies were tantamount to censorship, violating the principles embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the fall of 2015, a series of alleged racist incidents triggered student protests on college campuses throughout the United States. These events prompted further debate about the tension between restricting hateful speech and promoting free expression.

This article provides the following information:

1. Background content describing free speech practices on college campuses, including information about speech codes and federal guidelines.
2. Data pertaining to incidents involving speakers who were disinvited from college campuses due to student and/or faculty protests.
3. Information about protests that occurred on college campuses in the fall of 2015, including reactions and videos .

Use the tabs below to learn more about free speech on college campuses.

Background[edit]

Speech codes[edit]

The text of the First Amendment is engraved on the side of the Newseum building in Washington, D.C.

A speech code is defined as any "rule or regulation that limits, restricts or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press." According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), university and college speech codes came to prominence in the latter half of the 20th century; by "the early 1990s, at least 60 percent of all universities prohibited racist speech on campus." According to FIRE, some attribute the rise of speech codes to "a nationwide response to violent episodes of racial and other intolerance which took place on many college campuses in the 1980s and early 1990s, creating a generally unreceptive environment for racial and ethnic minorities, female students, and other historically disadvantaged groups." Others attribute the advent of speech codes to "a more general political correctness trend."^[1][2]

Opponents of speech codes have alleged that they inhibit free expression, discourage open discourse, and coddle students. Conor Friedersdorf, an opponent speech codes, wrote the following for The Atlantic:^[3][4]

Others have countered that speech codes serve an important function in protecting marginalized populations and encouraging civility. Reed McConnell wrote the following for The Harvard Crimson:

Freedom of speech and the law[edit]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech:

Protected speech has been further defined by a series of United States Supreme Court decisions. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the court established that state and local governments can outlaw a particular class of speech called "fighting words." The court upheld a New Hampshire statute that stated, "No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place." The court reasoned that the statute only outlawed words addressed to a specific individual and "which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.^[6]

The United States Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings defining the parameters of free speech.

However, the court has since ruled that the "fighting words" exception cannot be used to outlaw hate speech or even advocacy of violence.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court considered a case in which the Ku Klux Klan held a rally and burned a cross on private property while making statements about "revengeance." One member of the organization was convicted under a state law that made it a crime to advocate violence as a means of accomplishing political reform. The court struck the statute, stating that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."^[7]

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the court considered a local statute that criminalized placing "on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." A teenager had burned a cross on another person's lawn and had been convicted under the statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court had upheld the statute on the grounds that cities are allowed to outlaw "fighting words." However, the United States Supreme Court struck the statute, stating that it engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint and content restriction by outlawing only fighting words "that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance."^[8]

The court's decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul was later used by lower courts to strike speech policies at universities. For instance, in Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit struck Central Michigan University's harassment code, which banned "any intentional, unintentional, physical, verbal, or nonverbal behavior that subjects an individual to an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational, employment or living environment by demeaning or slurring individuals through ... written literature because of their racial or ethnic affiliation; or using symbols, epitaphs [sic] or slogans that infer negative connotations about an individual's racial or ethnic affiliation." Citing R.A.V., the court found that the policy engaged in viewpoint and content discrimination by outlawing only "fighting words" that pertain to race or ethnicity. Moreover, the policy could be used to restrict legitimate academic discourse and not just fighting words; for instance, a student paper criticizing a certain ethnic group's traditions could be construed as harassment under the policy. This interpretation was followed by other federal courts to strike university codes that restrict free speech, in Corry v. Leland Stanford Junior University (1995), Booher v. Board of Regents of Northern Kentucky University (1998), Bair v. Shippensburg University (2003), Roberts v. Haragan (2004), and College Republicans v. Reed (2007).^[9]

Federal guidelines for universities[edit]

The Office for Civil Rights is a division of the U.S. Department of Education.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits universities that receive federal funds (including student loans or research grants) from discriminating on the basis of sex. Under Title IX, universities are obligated to investigate and punish sexual harassment on campus. In 1994, two female students filed a complaint because sexually derogatory comments about them were posted on their community college's online bulletin board. The Office for Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Education, concluded that the college should prohibit online speech that "harass[es], denigrates, or shows hostility or aversion toward a particular individual or group based on that person's gender, race, color, national origin or disability" including "epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping ... or acts that purport to be 'jokes' or 'pranks'" and which have "the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, intimidating, or offensive educational environment."^[10] Universities and colleges expanded their harassment policies in the wake of the ruling.^[3]

In 2013, the Office for Civil Rights further expanded the definition of harassment when it issued a memo defining sexual harassment as "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct."^[11] The memo stated that the conduct need not be "objectively offensive" from the standpoint of a reasonable person in order to be considered harassment. The University of Montana, which was the immediate recipient of the memo, redefined its harassment and discrimination code broadly to include "name-calling or ... stereotypical notions of what is female/feminine vs. male/masculine."^[12]

Disinvited speakers[edit]

Student groups and administrators often invite individuals to speak at campus events, such as commencement ceremonies. These individuals may include politicians, authors, celebrities or other prominent individuals. Sometimes, students and faculty members may protest the appearance of a given speaker due to that speaker's beliefs, activities or past statements. As a result, the groups or individuals who invited the speaker to campus may be pressured to disinvite the speaker. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, refers to these events as disinvitation incidents. According to FIRE, from 2000 to 2014 a total of 88 speakers were unable to speak at campus events to which they had been invited. Of this total, 57 speakers were formally disinvited, 19 withdrew voluntarily and another 12 were "prevented from speaking due to substantial disruption of their event." During that same period, FIRE recorded a total of 114 unsuccessful disinvitation efforts.^[13][14]

The chart below breaks down disinvitation incidents from 2000 to 2014 by type.

The chart below tallies disinvitation incidents by year, demonstrating year-to-year changes.

Some critics have contended that disinvitations and forced withdrawals are tantamount to censorship and antithetical to the ideal of free expression.^[13]

Others, however, have argued that it is sometimes appropriate to limit certain kinds of speech:^[15]

Correlations with political ideology[edit]

Some have argued that disinvitation incidents disproportionately target conservative speakers. Susan Svrluga, writing for The Washington Post, asked "whether college campuses are places where intellectual inquiry has been smothered by political correctness, where conservative opinions are so unwelcome that they are shunned." According to a 2014 report by FIRE, conservative speakers were more frequently subject to disinvitation efforts than their liberal counterparts. See the chart below for further details.^[13][16]

List of disinvitations[edit]

Of the 202 disinvitation incidents recorded by FIRE from 2000 to 2014, 114 were unsuccessful. This accounts for 56.4 percent of all recorded disinvitations. Of the remaining 88 disinvitation incidents, 57 (28.2 percent) resulted in a formal disinvitation, and 19 (9.4 percent) resulted in the voluntary withdrawal of the speaker. In the remaining 12 incidents (5.9 percent), the speaker's presentation was disrupted by protesters. The table below lists campus disinvitation incidents from 2000 to 2014. This information was compiled by FIRE. To expand the table, click "[show]" on the right-hand side of the table title.^[14]

Student protests[edit]

Although several demonstrations occurred on campuses nationwide beginning in the fall of 2015, protests concerning racism at the University of Missouri were the subject of extensive media coverage, prompting a wide array of responses from academics, pundits, and politicians. At the University of California, Los Angeles, a fraternity and sorority hosted a themed party with alleged racist overtones, which sparked a series of students protests; the fraternity and sorority were ultimately suspended, which struck some as an act of censorship. Protests at Yale University, which centered on issues of racial sensitivity and the role of the university in limiting offensive acts of expression, prompted a national debate about how best to protect free expression while combatting racism.

University of Missouri[edit]

Memorial Union, University of Missouri

In the fall of 2015, a series of protests concerning racism on campus occurred at the University of Missouri:^{[17][18][19][20][21][22]}

1. On September 12, 2015, University of Missouri Student Government President Payton Head penned a Facebook post detailing instances of racism he had experienced on the university campus, including the use of racial slurs. Additional protests occurred across campus throughout the fall.
2. On October 10, 2015, student protesters blocked president Tim Wolfe's car during the university's homecoming parade, calling for him to respond to their claims of racist activity on campus. Law enforcement offers cleared the street; some student protesters alleged that officers used excessive force.
3. On October 21, 2015, Concerned Student 1950, a student group, called for Wolfe's resignation.
4. In late October, the university's Residence Halls Association announced that an unknown individual had smeared feces on the wall of a restroom in the shape of a swastika. A police report later confirmed this incident.
5. Wolfe met with members of Concerned Student 1950 on October 27, 2015.
6. On November 2, 2015, student Jonathan Butler commenced a hunger strike to protest what he characterized as "a slew of racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., incidents that have dynamically disrupted the learning experience at MU."
7. On November 6, 2015, Wolfe issued an apology to student protesters. Later that same day, in response to a protester who asked him whether he knew what "systematic oppression" was, Wolfe said, "Systematic oppression is because you don't believe that you have the equal opportunity for success." Protesters denounced this response, claiming that it placed blame on the victims of systematic oppression.
8. On November 8, 2015, black members of the university's football team announced that they would neither practice nor play until Wolfe was removed from office.

On November 9, 2015, Wolfe announced his resignation. The university's Board of Curators also "announced that it was enacting a series of diversity initiatives—including the appointment of a chief diversity, inclusion, and equity officer and efforts to recruit and retain more faculty and staff of color—that would go into effect within the next three months."^[22]

That same day, student photographer Tim Tai clashed with student protesters. These protesters, who had gathered in a public space on campus, repeatedly asked Tai to leave the area. Tai refused, asserting his First Amendment press rights. Student journalist Mark Schierbecker filmed the incident. Shortly after the confrontation between Tai and the protesters, assistant professor of communications Melissa Click accosted Schierbecker. According to a video of the incident, Click demanded that Schierbecker leave the area. Schierbecker refused, at which point Click called out, "Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here." Critics denounced the exchange as an assault on the freedom of the press. Others, however, argued that the journalists, while within their legal rights, conducted themselves poorly during these exchanges.^[23]

On January 25, 2016, Click was charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor offense. On February 25, 2016, the University of Missouri Board of Curators announced that Click's employment with the university had been terminated.^[24][25][26]

University of California, Los Angeles[edit]

Royce Hall, University of California, Los Angeles

On October 6, 2015, the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity and Alpha Phi sorority hosted a "Kanye Western" theme party, where attendees wore costumes inspired by musician Kanye West and television personality Kim Kardashian, West's wife. According to The Los Angeles Times, attendees "wore baggy clothes or dressed like the Kardashians, and some wore blackface." Photos of the party were posted to social media.^[27][28]

This drew the ire of some students, who alleged that the party "was racist and mocked black culture." Shortly after the party, students began to protest, calling on university officials to take action to foster a more inclusive campus environment. On October 8, 2015, Sigma Phi Epsilon published a statement acknowledging the fraternity's "lack of judgment in not recognizing the inappropriateness of the party theme." The fraternity denied that any party-goers wore blackface, however.^[27][28]

On October 8, 2015, university administrators released a media statement announcing the "immediate interim suspension" of both Sigma Phi Epsilon and Alpha Phi. The statement read, in part, as follows: "While we do not yet have all the facts, the alleged behavior is inconsistent with good judgment as well as our principles of community. We remind students that while they are free to celebrate in ways that draw on popular culture, their specific choices can cause harm and pain to fellow members of their community."^[29]

Critics alleged that these suspensions violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, citing legal precedents establishing that "a university may not discriminate against student speech based on its viewpoint." Supporters of the suspensions, however, countered that the university was right to take action in the interest of fostering greater diversity and inclusiveness on campus.^[30]

Yale University[edit]

Harkness Tower, Yale University

On October 28, 2015, Yale University's Intercultural Affairs Council circulated a message to Yale students. This message urged Yale students to refrain from wearing Halloween costumes that might be deemed racially insensitive. The memo read, in part, "We would hope that people would actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression."^[31]

Erika Christakis, a lecturer and an associate master of one of Yale's residential colleges, penned a critical response to this memo. Christakis wrote, "Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power?"^[32]

This response prompted negative reactions from some, who argued that Christakis was insensitive to the struggles of minority groups at Yale, particularly given her position as the associate master of a residence. A group of student protesters confronted Nicholas Christakis—Erika Christakis' husband and the master of Yale's Silliman College—on November 5, 2015. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, released a video of the encounter.^[33]

Critics alleged that the tenor of this exchange indicated hostility to the principles of free speech and civil discourse. Writing for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf characterized the protesters as follows: "They see anything short of a confession of wrongdoing as unacceptable. In their view, one respects students by validating their subjective feelings. Notice that the student position allows no room for civil disagreement."^[34]

Protesters called for the removal of Erika and Nicholas Christakis. On December 7, 2015, Yale officials announced that Erika Christakis had chosen to resign and that Nicholas Christakis would be taking a one-year sabbatical.^[35]

Reactions[edit]

Reactions to student protests beginning in 2015 were diverse. Some criticized student activists, arguing that their tactics undermined the principles of free speech and civil discourse. Further, some critics argued that these incidents indicated a level of intellectual immaturity on the part of the protesters, who critics alleged were intolerant of ideas other than their own. Others, however, defended the protesters, arguing that they themselves were exercising their free speech rights. Others still argued that the free speech debate resulting from these protests diverted attention from the more pressing issue (namely, racism, which was the subject around which most of these protests were organized).

Attitudes about limiting offensive speech[edit]

In November 2015, Pew Research Center released a report summarizing attitudes toward "censoring offensive statements made about minorities." On the whole, Pew found that 67 percent of Americans believed that "people should be able say these things publicly." Among individuals aged 18-34, this number dropped to 58 percent, lower than any other age group. Pew's survey also found that opinions on this topic differed according to political party affiliation and race. See the graphs below for further details.^[36]

Arguments criticizing protesters[edit]

Student journalist Tim Tai confronts protesters at the University of Missouri

Some criticized student activists, arguing that they resorted to "stigma, call-outs and norm-shaping in their efforts to combat racism." Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer for The Atlantic, criticized student activists at the University of Missouri for attempting to prevent a student journalist, Tim Tai, from photographing them:^[37]

Other critics argued that these protests were indicative of a larger problem on America's campuses: the "coddling of the American mind." Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor, said the following:^[38]

Arguments defending protesters[edit]

However, others defended the student activists, arguing that they themselves were exercising their rights to free expression and should not be shouted down for doing so. Angus Johnston, a historian specializing in student activism, wrote the following in a Rolling Stone commentary:^[39][40]

Jelani Cobb, a staff writer for The New Yorker, argued that the free speech controversies attending the protests at Yale and the University of Missouri were diversionary:^[41]

Reactions from politicians[edit]

Democrats[edit]

1. President Barack Obama: "I think it's a healthy thing for young people to be engaged and to question authority and to ask why this instead of that and to, you know, ask tough questions about social justice. So I don't want to discourage kids from doing that. As I've said before, I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right. ... Well, you know, feel free to disagree with somebody. But don't try to just shut them up. If somebody doesn't believe in affirmative action, they may disagree. You may disagree with them. I disagree with them. But have an argument with them. It's possible for somebody not to be racist and want a just society but believe that that is something that is inconsistent with the Constitution. And you should engage."^[42]
2. 
   Hillary Clinton: "Obviously, I believe that on a college campus there should be enough respect so people hear each other, but what happened at [the University of Missouri], what’s happening at other universities, I think reflects the deep sense of, you know, concern, even despair that so many young people, particularly of color, have. You know, I recently met with a group of mothers who lost their children to, either killings by police, or random killings in their neighborhoods, and hearing their stories was so incredibly, profoundly heartbreaking."^[43]
3. Bernie Sanders: "I'm listening to the #BlackOnCampus conversation. It's time to address structural racism on college campuses."^[44]

Republicans[edit]

1. Jeb Bush: "I think people need to be sensitive to overt examples of racism, but there ought to be a climate where there's tolerance and free speech. The irony in Missouri is that they have one of the finest journalism schools in the country, and you had a journalism professor -- I don't think a tenured professor -- that basically shouted down a student journalist. And at Yale University, you'd think free expression would be allowed and tolerated. It looks like it isn't."^[45]
2. Ben Carson: "We're being a little too tolerant, I guess you might say, accepting infantile behavior. I don't care which side it comes from. To say that I have the right to violate your civil rights because you're offending me is un-American."^[46]
3. 
   Ted Cruz: Regarding controversy at Princeton University, where student protesters argued that Princeton's Wilson School of Public and International Affairs should be renamed, given President Woodrow Wilson's racism, Cruz said, "I am not a fan of Woodrow Wilson. I think his policies did a great deal of damage to this country, but that being said I think the protesters at Princeton who are embracing this radical political correctness where they are claiming a right to be offended at anything they deem contrary to their vision of the world – that is completely antithetical to the mission of a university." He characterized protesters as "pampered teenagers who are scared of an idea that challenges their world view."^[47]
4. Marco Rubio: "Freedom of speech on campuses seems to be under assault in some of the supposedly finest institutions in this country. In the case of Missouri, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that got the president fired."^[48]
5. Donald Trump: "I think it's disgusting. I think the two people that resigned [at the University of Missouri] are weak, ineffective people. I think that when they resigned, they set something in motion that's gonna be a disaster for the next long period of time."^[46]

Videos[edit]

Below is video footage from some of the protest incidents described on this page.

Yale University protests (November 5, 2015)[edit]

University of Missouri protests[edit]

Protesters' encounter with Tim Tai and Mark Schierbecker (November 9, 2015)[edit]

Homecoming parade protest (October 10, 2015)[edit]

News feeds[edit]

Campus protests[edit]

This section links to a Google news search for the terms "campus + protest".

Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine.

Free speech on campus[edit]

This section links to a Google news search for the terms "free + speech + campus".

Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine.

See also[edit]

• 

  United States Constitution

• 

  Civil liberties policy on Ballotpedia

• 

  Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits

External links[edit]

• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Concerned Student 1950 – official Twitter account
• Black Lives Matter
• American Civil Liberties Union

Additional reading[edit]

• The Atlantic, "Campus Politics: A Cheat Sheet," January 19, 2016
• Rolling Stone, "There's No College P.C. Crisis: In Defense of Student Protestors," December 17, 2015
• The New Yorker, "Race and the Free-Speech Diversion," November 10, 2015
• The Atlantic, "Campus Activists Weaponize 'Safe Space,'" November 10, 2015
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, "Disinvitation Report 2014: A Disturbing 15-Year Trend," May 28, 2014

Footnotes[edit]