what is a “free speech absolutist?”

In discussions of campus free speech, people toss around the phrase “free speech absolutist.” What does that mean? First, you have to define what a college is: an educational institution set up for adult education and research in various scholarly areas. What would it mean for there to be “absolute free speech?” Here is one way to think about it:

• Absolutist free speech would mean that the college has to let anyone come to campus and say anything they want.
• Absolutist unfree speech would mean that you can’t say anything unless it was approved by the college, which can censor whatever it wants.

In American history, colleges have shifted dramatically to the stronger tradition of free speech. It used to be the case that professors and administrators controlled most public speakers and clubs didn’t do much. Now, most colleges has a ton of student groups that are given free reign to invite whatever speaker they want to campus. And they do so without too much faculty interference.

Thus, most readers are already leaning toward the “absolute” side of things, but not totally.  Most people, including myself, don’t believe that colleges are obliged to host anyone who asks for a space to talk, but they do give a lot of leeway to students and faculty. The real issue happens when a professor or student invites a speaker who is genuinely controversial.

I think the anti-free speech people mean something like “if someone says something dangerous, we should have the right to ban them from campus.” Sometimes this is honest; people are genuinely alarmed by certain ideas. Sometimes it is just a way to shut down people who disagree with you.

But ultimately, how should we decide what is dangerous? In some cases, it is pretty obvious. If someone spouts a call for anti-Semitic violence, for example, they won’t be welcome. But, what if, a speaker thinks that immigrants are more likely to commit crime? Or that some that some ethnic group has an undesirable trait? In such cases, there are not calls to violence. Instead, they are unpopular opinions that can be subject to scholarly debate.

Ultimately, it lays on the shoulders of students and faculty to decide what unpopular opinions should be debated on campus. What if students or faculty invite crazies? Here, I like the view of Emily Chamlee-Wright, who advocates higher levels of faculty involvement. Faculty can say, “do you feel that you want your name attached to this idea? Is this really a good example of scholarly debate?” Normally, faculty sponsors for clubs intervene very little but with some more effort, faculty can help maintain an atmosphere of free speech on campus while having it applied in a more thoughtful way.

++++++++

BUY THESE BOOKS!!
50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($4.44 – cheap!!!!)
A theory book you can understand!!! Theory for the Working Sociologist (discount code: ROJAS – 30% off!!)
The rise of Black Studies:  From Black Power to Black Studies 
Did Obama tank the antiwar movement? Party in the Street
Read Contexts Magazine– It’s Awesome!!!