Judgment against Oberlin College threatens free speech
An Ohio jury awarded $44 million in damages against Oberlin College in a lawsuit by a local Oberlin business alleging defamation and emotional distress. The judge presiding over the case recently reduced the judgment to $25 million.
The national news around the case, fueled by a caricatured mischaracterization of facts, has provoked a curious note of celebration in some quarters. Some have suggested that this is justice for those things they do not like in higher education, that Oberlin had it coming for its misguided pursuit of social justice, or that it was just punishment for institutions that coddle students.
None of this is surprising. Today, virtually all public activity is considered political, and political discourse has devolved into scoring
partisan points. An outsized jury verdict is an opportunity for people to draw simple self-serving conclusions from a complex set of facts.
Oddly, none of the commentators have mentioned the danger this lawsuit poses to free speech — a threat not only to small colleges like ours but to institutions and individuals of all sorts, all across the country. Left to stand, this verdict could force censorship of all kinds of speech and activity coming from anywhere on the political spectrum.
To see why, consider the central evidence in this case: a flyer that students created and distributed, which accused the business owners of racism, and a resolution passed by the Student Senate — a student-run organization — making a similar claim.
The accusations were chanted at a student demonstration in front of the store. A college administrator was present at the protest; she was there because it is her job to make sure that such events are safe and lawful.
The college itself said nothing about the business.
Some in our community have stood firmly with the students; others have disagreed vehemently with their message and judgment. But in this country, questions of judgment do not limit our right to free speech, and the court properly acknowledged that the students’ speech was constitutionally protected. Despite this, the jury held the college liable for the students’ speech.
By this logic, parents could be legally liable for the speech of their children, organizations for the speech of their constituents and people assembled at a rally liable for what others there say. Ironically, businesses like the plaintiff’s could be held responsible for statements by vendors or customers.
Chris Canavan, the chairman of Oberlin’s Board of Trustees, and I firmly believe the implication of this decision is clear and dangerous: Institutions like Oberlin could have an obligation to control speech in ways that limit the First Amendment rights of those expressing their views.
The specter of such liability could chill free speech and justify censorship. This is especially troubling for colleges, which the law recognizes distinctively as “marketplaces of ideas” where speech should have “breathing space” so that ideas can be tested and thought can flourish. The First Amendment encourages us to speak up. This verdict tells us to be quiet.
From its beginning, Oberlin has embodied the twin values that make America distinctive: the central importance of community and a commitment to individual rights. The town and school were founded together, in 1833, as a Christian community. We continue to live together, and we will continue to heal our community’s wounds together. Oberlin was the first college to have a policy that admitted students regardless of race and to become coeducational. Our commitment to academic excellence, bold creativity, critical thinking and the value of diverse perspectives all tie back to our ability to gather and exchange ideas freely.
That’s why this case has been so hard on everybody involved: the plaintiffs, the college and the town itself. It has been hard to see neighbor pitted against neighbor and to see an institution we love caricatured.
Given our history, Oberlin is no stranger to criticism. But this criticism pales against the dangers of putting short-term political gain ahead of the long-term interest of free speech.
Colleges and universities have contributed to our nation’s cultural and economic vitality because they have been laboratories of free speech and free thought, allowing us to speak our conscience, air our differences and strengthen our communities. This process has always been messy and difficult. But at Oberlin, we will remain a champion of community and that distinctive American virtue of free speech. That’s who we are.