Legislators should revisit college speech codes
of Justice took notice and filed a statement of interest in the case. It argued that “the University’s Bias Response Policy chills protected speech” and that the school’s speech policy “is unconstitutional because it offers no clear, objective definitions of the violations.”
Four weeks after the suit was filed, UM announced it would revise its speech code.
This may be a happy ending for UM faculty and students who value free speech. But it shouldn’t take a lawsuit, a federal statement of interest and some 150 specious reports of individuals being offended for a school to revise its speech policies.
Ohio State University also has a bias assessment and response team. Recently, it investigated the local chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom after an anonymous individual claimed to be offended by a comment posted in a public group chat hosted by YAF. An administrator wanted to meet to discuss how the organization was operating and how to avoid incidents that may be perceived as bias — a clever intimidation mechanism for the university to shut down controversy and dissent.
YAF has a clear goal: to advocate for ideas of limited government, individual liberties and free enterprise. The biggest right YAF fights for is the right to free expression — the right to state your opinion, regardless of the content. To promote free speech doesn’t mean you support all opinions, just everyone else’s right to express what they believe.
Ohio lawmakers should revisit the legislative proposal introduced last year that would reshape public college speech codes and protect speech on campus. The proposal said, “Offense or irritation taken to the content of expression shall not be considered an actionable harm under any circumstances.” That should limit the oppressive actions of offices such as Ohio State’s BART.
States around the country are enacting similar proposals. In the past 12 months, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and the governing board of the Wisconsin state college system have adopted these ideas — and more, in some cases — to protect free speech on campus.
Ohio’s proposal is a good start, but lawmakers should consider adding provisions from North Carolina, Arizona and elsewhere. For example, lawmakers should say that professors and students can take positions on controversial topics of the day without fear of institutional reprisal. If a school decides to take a position on a contentious issue, the college should not censor students or faculty members for expressing a different opinion privately or publicly.
The proposal also should encourage colleges and universities to discipline individuals who violate others’ free speech rights. For example, if a protester — student, faculty or other member of the campus community — forcibly disrupts an event or shouts down speakers so they cannot be heard, the school should be prepared to suspend or expel the offender.
Also needed: due process protections for those accused of violating someone’s free speech rights. Individuals on both sides of a speech-related incident should be informed of campus hearings on the issue and be allowed to find representation if necessary.
Ohio lawmakers should take steps now to protect free speech on public college campuses and rid schools of oppressive speech codes. College should be a place where students can explore new ideas, challenge assumptions and learn to evaluate competing claims. Censorship has no place on campus.