UNLV and free speech,

Free speech: If not on campus then where?

Earlier this month, the Review-Journal reported on an email exchange between part-time UNLV math instructor George Buch and a student at the university. In the exchange, Mr. Buch indicated he would turn in to ICE any students in his class who he learned were undocumented.

Once this came to light, it predictably sparked a public conversation about immigration policy and immigrant rights at UNLV and throughout Nevada’s higher education system. Many people were understandably upset and scared, and called for punitive action against Mr. Buch. Given that the emails surfaced at UNLV, where better to engage in an informed debate about how our country treats immigrants than an institution whose primary mission is to encourage such dialogue?

Sadly, that is not what happened. Just as sadly, no one should be surprised.

Before all the facts about the email exchange were known, the cries for Mr. Buch’s termination were deafening. However misguided, these demands are unarguably protected by the same First Amendment as the speech they were meant to stifle.

A group of well-intentioned students, faculty and community activists proceeded to organize a protest at UNLV’s “free speech zone” to express their outrage, insist that UNLV banish Mr. Buch and call for the university to establish itself as a “sanctuary campus” where immigrants would be safe from threats of being deported or otherwise mistreated based on their immigration status.

UNLV administrators predictably announced they would investigate the affair and decide whether to discipline Mr. Buch. Except for a perfunctory statement noting its commitment to the First Amendment, the university was remarkably muted concerning the free speech rights of its faculty, students, administrators and community members who might venture onto campus.

The university’s boiler-plate statement was predictable because it and other Nevada colleges and universities have had a checkered history when it comes to respecting the robust free speech we should expect them to prize and consistently support. It was as predictable as the rush of goodhearted advocates to champion the cause of immigrant rights, a cause I myself embrace. It is, however, unfortunate they sought to do so by silencing someone whose views they deemed an unacceptable affront.

How better to make plain the irony in all this, and how misguided it was, than to note that those who called for Mr. Buch’s ouster rushed to a “free speech zone” to express their outrage? The real outrage is that UNLV and other schools have created these spaces at all. One can hope only that the very idea of “free speech zones” would occasion protests, because these limits on free speech are anathema to the ethos of higher education.

At colleges and universities, the entire outdoor campus area should be open to free speech, no matter how insulting or offensive it might be, as long as it does not turn into behavior that is actually harassing. Only in limited areas where expressive activities would be logistically disruptive should they possibly be limited. Like the free expression of opinions such as those shared in Mr. Buch’s emails, which both he and their recipient now insist have been misunderstood, the most innocuous and most contentious speech should be equally protected wherever it occurs without impeding anyone’s ability to learn.

Contrary to popular tropes about the silencing of conservatives by liberals, censorship is not a partisan issue. Nor is the impulse to censor the sole province of those with any particular political bent. People on the left and right will seek to silence those with whom they disagree.

There is a litany of examples of university and college powers-that-be and/or politically diverse members of those communities seeking to quash expression they consider abhorrent.

For instance, we’ve seen professors teaching subject matter some considered antigay; supposedly anti-patriotic pro-gay activists who protested on-campus military recruiters; petitioners gathering signatures to qualify ballot initiatives; people using library computers to view images thought to be pornographic; students placing in their dorm windows political posters deemed controversial; those planning to protest Donald Trump during the presidential debate at UNLV.

These and many other people on Nevada campuses met with efforts to silence or cabin their speech.

Those who would stifle speech should beware. When censorship is “normalized” as an acceptable way to shut down purportedly “bad” speech, it is probably relatively powerless people who will most often be gagged. And when anyone is gagged, it undercuts robust debate that should be the hallmark of democracy and that we hope will produce positive outcomes. For principled and practical reasons, that is not something anyone should defend.