A welcome defense of free speech on campus

OKLAHOMA higher education officials have lamented the budget cuts of recent years and noted their negative impacts on producing more students with undergraduate and advanced degrees — something the state badly needs.

One of those officials is concerned about a particular aspect of college life, one that contributes greatly to producing men and women who are well-rounded when they enter the workforce. Andy Lester’s take on the importance of freedom of speech is worth sharing.

Lester, an attorney and a member of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, delivered remarks at the University of Oklahoma last month during a regents-sponsored program titled “Legal Issues in Higher Education.” In Lester’s view, freedom of expression and academic freedom must be protected if universities as we know them are to survive.

“I am concerned higher education is rushing headlong toward an anti-intellectual abyss,” he said. “Many on college campuses appear to be turning their backs on freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression.”

Lester called this an “existential threat” to higher ed, and cited a handful of high-profile examples such as political scientist Charles Murray being shouted down (and a professor being hurt in the melee) at Middlebury College in Vermont. Such intolerance has been found on campuses from coast to coast, he noted. (Indeed, not long after Lester’s speech, an OU law professor was pressured into resigning his administrative position for espousing conservative Catholic views as a private citizen.)

“What I find exceptionally worrisome is that this anti-free thought threat is coming not from without, but from within,” Lester said. “Sometimes faculty members are leading the anti-free speech movement. Even more shocking is the fact that students are often leading the charge to exclude ideas from their campuses.”

And these aren’t all the result of political disagreements. “It may involve a student complaining about something someone said in a classroom,” he said. “It could concern someone upset about a large gift from a major donor who somehow is controversial. Perhaps it surrounds the placement of a statue on campus grounds.”

In all cases, they’re concerning. Lester said universities may restrict expression that, for example, violates the law or falsely defames someone, and they may reasonably regulate “time, place and manner of expression.” However, he argued they should strive to provide more discussion of ideas, not less.

A higher education prepares students for their careers, but also should do much more, Lester suggested — hone critical thinking skills, teach research and analysis, present students with ethical problems and teach them how to resolve them properly.

Doing that requires excellent professors, support staff and facilities, he argued, but also “a commitment to the free exchange of ideas, to discerning truth from falsehood, to providing the opportunity to confront challenging ideas and thereby to learn what is the better way.”

“No college or university is doing its job if it is not committed to allowing and encouraging the exchange of differing ideas.”

Lester’s remarks are on point. University administrators, faculty and students would do well to heed them.