I’m a conservative student. Freedom of speech protects pro-Palestinian protesters too.
I’m a member of the College Republicans and the Federalist Society who’s interning at the Cato Institute this summer. I’ve been on Fox News numerous times to speak out against affirmative action in college admissions. I also oppose the crackdown on peaceful pro-Palestinian voices at universities across the country.
Last week, at the urging of House Republicans, Columbia University called in the New York police to arrest pro-Palestinian protesters who were protesting Israel’s attacks on Gaza in a common outdoor space, and its president mulled over the possibility of punishing students who use the “from the river to the sea” chant that some view as antisemitic. The University of Southern California announced it will not allow its valedictorian — a Muslim woman who supports Palestinians — to speak at its commencement, caving due to concerns over a potentially violent backlash to her views. at the University of Texas at austin, peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters faced mass arrests at the behest of the Republican governor.
To be clear, some protesters have gone beyond expressing their outrage with only their voices, and those engaged in violence, harassment, and the occupation of secure buildings deserve to be arrested — the rights of protesters end when the rights of others are infringed upon. But the systematic censoring of activists by those claiming the mantle of conservatism has a certain tinge of irony; for years, conservatives have been outspoken advocates of free speech at universities, aware that those on the right often bear the brunt of campus censorship. For some, the defense of free expression was little more than partisan gamesmanship used to push a right-wing agenda. But for me, it always stemmed from the deeper conviction that free speech is essential to academic inquiry and human progress.
When certain ideas are off-limits, it’s impossible for the scientific method — a university’s primary fact-finding instrument — to function effectively. Galileo’s theory that the earth revolved around the sun was ultimately validated, but his imprisonment for espousing it held back human knowledge. a thriving university exists in relentless pursuit of the truth, and that process requires the open exchange of all viewpoints — not the suppression of ideas deemed too scandalous. When ideas are judged on their merits, the bad ones invariably fail under the weight of opposing scrutiny; vetoes by administrative fiat are never required.
It is true that many, including myself, find aspects of pro-Palestinian rhetoric deeply offensive, including a public statement by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine that characterized Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack as a justified “counter-offensive.” But that fact alone makes a weak case for censorship; inherently, offensiveness is a subjective metric that exists only in the eye of the beholder. as such, it’s too easy for bad-faith actors to cry crocodile tears and use the doctrine of political correctness as a cudgel, silencing their ideological opponents and rendering themselves immune to criticism.
But even ideas that cause genuine offense can still represent the sincerely held political outlook of others. Pro-Palestinian activists are undoubtedly offended by supporters of Israel whom they see as genocide apologists; if they controlled a university’s levers of power, pro-Israel advocates would be shut down per this rationale. allowing a cadre of administrators to unilaterally dictate the parameters of political discourse is so disastrous precisely because of its chilling effect on dissenting opinions; for this reason, even the avowedly anti-racist american Civil Liberties Union regularly litigates on behalf of Klansmen and Nazis in
First amendment cases to ensure that free speech remains a safeguarded right for all, not a privilege doled out by those at the top.
This is not to say that the ongoing protests should be brushed aside as inconsequential noise or that Jewish students are wrong to feel uneasy or hurt. The fact that the protests have caused so much pain and anger suggests the opposite: Words are uniquely powerful in their capacity to inspire, anger, evoke joy, stoke fear, or offend. Speech’s proven record of changing hearts and minds and sparking backlash is exactly what makes wrenching it from a university’s body politic and ceding it to unaccountable bureaucrats so dangerous; under such a regime, those elite few have free rein to manipulate, propagandize, spread falsehoods, and advocate their own interests, with no countervailing forces to keep them in check.
Those who curtail objectionable speech often naively believe that by doing so, they’re stopping the spread of harmful ideas. But in practice, censorship often fans the flames it’s meant to extinguish, with the poor optics of suspensions and arrests drawing otherwise unwarranted publicity and media attention to the movement meant to be sidelined. Punitive actions toward those protesting peacefully are also almost inevitably wielded as a cause célèbre when protest organizers harness the outpouring of righteous indignation to mobilize more supporters for their cause. With undergraduate protest movements so commonplace these days, the Columbia encampment would probably have been little more than a blip in the news cycle if not for the highly dramatic showdown with police officers clad in riot gear — certainly a mistake by Columbia’s leaders if their aim was to quell the disruption.
The modern university already boasts an abysmal free speech record; as someone derided by my Brown University classmates for being “the Fox News kid,” I know this firsthand. The solution is not for conservatives to take a page out of the left’s playbook and root out views we find disagreeable — this only further imperils conservative students by empowering universities to take harsh measures against those with unpopular opinions. Rather, we must stand firm on principle and set the precedent that free speech protections are absolute. Defending the free speech rights of those we disagree with can be hard — but only when freedom of speech protects everyone can we rest assured knowing it protects us.
When certain ideas are offlimits, it’s impossible for the scientific method — a university’s primary factfinding instrument — to function effectively.