Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus

by Donald Alexander Downs

Book Overview

This book addresses a major problem in contemporary American higher education: deprivations of free speech, due process, and other basic civil liberties in the name of favored political causes. Downs begins by analyzing the nature and evolution of the problem, and discusses how these betrayals of liberty have harmed the truth seeking mission of universities. Rather than promoting equal respect and tolerance of diversity, policies restricting academic...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0134329317
• ISBN13: 9780521689717
• Release Date: January 1996
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Length: 320 Pages
• Weight: 0.95 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

a balanced, reasoned account by a liberal

The main purpose and content of this book is to present four case studies. In the first two, those of U. Penn and U. Wisconsin, thanks to efforts made by faculty and students in the last few years, gains were made in restoring some degree of free speech and other Bill-of-Rights protections to faculty and students. In the other two, Columbia and Berkeley, no such efforts have been made and the status quo continues. The author states that most or all other campuses resemble the latter two. Also, in introductory chapters, the author gives a precis of what has happened to colleges and universities since 1987: (1) the redefinition of the mission of the university from the search for truth and knowledge to the transforming of individuals into sensitive members of the community from whom all racism, sexism and homophobia has been washed away. (2) the redefinition of speech as action. One doesn't state an opinion, one offends another person or harasses another person. So, codes against harassment and creating a hostile environment include saying anything of which the censors disapprove. (3) "critical race theory", the view that racism is endemic to liberal society and that such notions as individual, reason, merit, etc. are racist notions and should be suppressed. The author, like many others, states that the motive for the de facto repeal of the Bill of Rights at universities was that the welfare of some groups was more important. He goes on to point out that the consequences have been anything but beneficial, even to those groups. Feelings of antagonism have increased. An increasing infantilization or dependency of the favored groups has occurred. etc. The author cites a number of other interesting recent books, including McWhorter, Losing the Race; Wood, Diversity; Kuran, Private Truths, Public Lies; Farber and Sherry, Beyond All Reason; and Kors and Silvergate, The Shadow University. Kors and Silvergate have continued to be active in the area and have established an organization called Foundation for Individual Freedom in Education (FIRE) with a website, www.thefire.org, where complaints can be registered. The site makes interesting if harrowing reading. There is also a database in which you can look up any college and get FIRE's rating of the degree of freedom on that campus. One strength of the book is its narrow focus. That means, however, that other books need also to be consulted. The book is especially weak on the causes or development of the present situtation. The author states that he became a faculty member in the mid-1980s as a result of having written an anti-Nazi book (PhDs looking for faculty positions, take note!). By that time, the situation had already developed. For an eyewitness account in narrative form of the groups and motives that led to the present situation, see The Rape of Alma Mater. For a detailed study of the situation at the present time, one which includes other parts of society that

What happened to free speech on American campuses?

One would think that American universities would be centers of free speech, where all sorts of views could be stated freely. Well, that hasn't been entirely the case recently. And this book examines some of the problems that have arisen. I would have thought that the fundamental issues would be simple. Most speech is inoffensive. Some speech is actually illegal (sedition, incitement, or whatever). The line between illegal speech and legal speech may be a subject of debate, but that line exists somewhere. And some speech is in between: it is offensive but not illegal. And those who are offended have plenty of options: they can shun such people, or tell others about their bad manners, and so forth. As this book points out, once one has rules against offensive speech, not just against intimidation (or worse), that leads to thought control. And there are some examples of what has been happening along these lines. One spectacular example is the 1993 "water buffalo" case at the University of Pennsylvania. A Penn freshman got in trouble for using the term "water buffalo" in response to students who were making too much noise at midnight outside his dormitory. Although a simple apology from him would have been the most reasonable resolution, Penn made this into a major case. So did much of the nation! The result was not only a victory for the accused student, but the removal of the "speech codes" at Penn. It seems that the speech codes were doomed by the idiotic claims of Penn officials, including the Penn President, that they were merely following due process in the water buffalo case. Downs describes how speech codes were removed at the University of Wisconsin as well. And there is some fascinating material about the University of California, Berkeley. The campus newspaper ran an ad that offended some people, and then compounded the problem by apologizing for it (offending even more folks). And then, there was a speech by well-known conservative David Horowitz. An assistant chancellor warned Horowitz that he might be shouted down "because the right of free expression also" belonged to those that disagreed with him! I find it incredible that such censorship could be called "free expression." Others were similarly censored just for having "politically incorrect" views. A striking example was former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was prevented from speaking to 2000 waiting ticket holders by a couple of hundred foes of free speech. One of these people, when challenged about what she had done replied that she didn't "believe in free speech for war criminals." By the way, given Netanyahu's record, I find such a charge against him ludicrous. And I wonder if genuine criminals, such as Yasir Arafat, would have been shouted down at Berkeley. One more topic in the book is the sexual misconduct policy at Columbia University. That's another university that has a problem with taking political correctness too seriously.