Crossroads: ‘Free speech’ bills don’t actually protect free speech.
‘Free speech’ bills are really bad for free speech
You’d think I’d be in favor of the “campus free speech” bills the Wisconsin Legislature is considering. I’m a strong proponent of free speech on campus, and I believe that our students benefit from being exposed to all kinds of views, even those that mock or directly attack the values they were raised with by their families.
But these bills are bad law. They’ll suppress free speech at the University of Wisconsin, not protect it.
AB299, the Assembly’s bill, requires that the university suspend any student found to have twice interfered with free expression on campus and expel a student after a third offense. There is no other university infraction for which the state Legislature determines the penalty. Beat up a fellow student, vandalize a campus building, steal the final exam and sell copies, cheer for Ohio State in public — no matter the crime, the university determines the punishment based on the merits of the individual case. The Wisconsin Institute on Law and Liberty, a rightleaning organization that strongly supports free speech on campus, has called for this provision to be removed, saying “the specific punishment in any given incident should be left to the educational institution.”
The bill forbids “violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others.” What counts as “disorderly”? How much disruption is “substantial”? Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who wrote the bill together with Rep. Jesse Kremer, has insisted that no student would be disciplined for reasonable protesting. I hope he’s right. But we’ve already seen dozens of people charged with felony rioting in Washington, D.C., who were present at a violent protest but who haven’t been associated with any act of vandalism or disruption. Students who want to exercise their First Amendment right to protest will have no way of being sure they won’t be thrown out of school for doing so. That’s no way to protect our constitutional rights.
Sen. Leah Vukmir’s bill is arguably an even graver threat to freedom. Her bill requires that “University and college campus administrators shall remain neutral on public policy controversies.” That doesn’t square with the university’s very real need to argue for scientific research and humanistic scholarship, and for support for our students and employees. Vos, who co-authored AB299 with Rep. Jesse Kremer, rightly praises strong statements in favor of free speech by administrators at Chicago and Yale; under this bill, our own chancellor would be barred from standing up for freedom of speech in the same way. How does that help?
The Vukmir bill also says “no person…. may threaten to organize protests… with the purpose to dissuade an invited speaker from attending a campus event.” To disrupt a lecture is one thing,
to “dissuade” is another. If speakers come here to argue that Israel has no right to exist, or that white people are genetically superior to lesser races, or just to display unflattering photos of our students and make fun of them in public, they have every right to do so. But they’d better expect some kids to be clamoring outside the hall. If that’s enough to dissuade them from coming, too bad for their tender selves. Peaceful protest is a right.
Let’s be honest. What Vos and Vukmir are worried about isn’t free speech in general; they’re worried that conservative
views are forbidden by thought police on campus. Good news: that’s just not true. And I’m proud it’s not true. Gov. Scott Walker has spoken here. Sen. Ron Johnson has spoken here. Dinesh D’Souza has spoken here.
Conservative firebrand Ben Shapiro was here in November: protestors hollered and made a ruckus but then cleared the hall and the man had his say. This spring we hosted Steve Forbes and Wisconsin’s brilliant solicitor general, Misha Tseytlin. Forbes, too, drew a small group of protesters. They protested outside the building — not the building where Forbes was speaking, but the one next door. Wisconsin kids are nice.
Harry Brighouse, a philosophy professor at UW-Madison, told graduating students this year:
“You might be pro-choice or pro-life about abortion. You might support or oppose charter schools which aim to serve low-income kids in urban areas. You might support or oppose increasing redistributive taxation. Whatever your stance, you know for sure that there are
morally decent, and reasonable, people who disagree with you.
If you don’t know that, by the way, you should get out more.”
He’s right, and he represents a commitment to hearing all views that the University of Wisconsin always has been proud to uphold.
Vos pointed out in his testimony that Colorado recently passed a campus free speech law, with bipartisan support, which he described as substantially similar to his bill. It isn’t. The Colorado bill establishes a legal principle that free speech is sacrosanct on campus without suppressing the right of students to express their views. If our state legislators really want to stand up for our constitutional rights, they’ll follow Colorado’s lead and do the same.