Free speech isn’t improving on campuses

By Michael McGrady

Saturday, June 24, 2017 | 2 a.m.

What do you see in the news whenever outlets are reporting on free speech issues on a college campus? Protesters? Disgruntled students and professors of varying political ideologies? Administrators vouching to protect only certain types of speech? Violence against people who have differing opinions?

No matter what is being show in the news media these days, the free speech climate on the American college campus is still a bleak one. Even with President Donald Trump’s promise to students to protect speech on campus, the efforts are limited at best.

In effect, the overall free speech climate and its current state can still be attributed to the major, multi-faceted narrative of anti-Trumpism and anti-hate speech mentalities. Simply, the system of tolerance and diversity created in the guise of social justice rhetoric and ideology has been counter-productive in ensuring a true sense of equality. Equality in the eyes of our laws and founding documents, that is.

This fight for free speech on campus has been seen in several states in the form of legislative proposals that mandate that speech of all sorts is heard on college campuses. One notable example of the recent legislative pushes at the state level that has received a lot of pushback from a consortium of opposition is the campus free speech bill before the Wisconsin legislature.

This bill would mandate the University of Wisconsin system to create an educational setting that fosters lively debate over emotionally charged repression of such things. Essentially, the bill provides students the opportunity to engage with campus guests and speakers who are deemed “controversial” without hindrance. And, as noted by the bill sponsors in an initial hearing, could give students the ability potentially to challenge, through disagreement, the tenured ivory tower that teaches them.

However, the Wisconsin bill has drawn criticism over two main components — the origins of the bill and the empowerment students are given.

The opposition wants to point the finger at where the bill came from to determine its true intentions. The particular bill is model legislation for several states, written by the conservative Goldwater Institute. Though a valid legislative proposal, opponents to the legislation argue that the bill will implode on itself because it only has the interests of right-wing speakers in interest.

That is simply not the case; nevertheless, this sentiment contributes to the apparent fact that students who have differing opinions should be disregarded. Combine those two arguments and, from there, you can bore this type of mentality into easily impressionable college students to elicit and activate on their campuses.

It is arguable that some of the “radical” approaches to fighting and condemning what is characterized as hate speech is ultimately born from the students, more so than the professors and faculty members.

Intentionally, the college student is placed in a scenario where he or she is given the food for thought that their professors deem necessary for understanding complex social issues. Regardless, professors planting these seeds of impractical information with rudimentary real-world applications to point to as examples, the information will be misconstrued as possible.

Take the Anti-Fascist movements across the United States. The group has quickly become a public nuisance riddled with controversies of violence and scandal for the sake of protecting the world from the apparent rise of the next Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler.

Where Antifa gets it wrong almost every time is its immediate, brutish mentality to physically hurt someone who disagrees with them. Rather than violent acts, they should engage in the civil discourse that people on all sides are craving. Moreover, this radical approach to fighting certain types of inflammatory speech is adopted by the college students and is viewed as an acceptable means of protest.

Until students actually realize the ability of outside factors and influences that college campus are subject to, the debate will be one of incivility. What is immediate, though, is that nothing is accomplished when a conservative student has his or her head bashed in for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

The righteous are the ones who wish to engage with differing perspectives, not the ones willing to suppress. And, as demonstrated by groups fighting against legislation to open up campuses to wide-ranging, unhindered debate and the violent roving squads, there is still no victory for free speech on campus. Incidents like the riots at UC Berkeley should not be the future where our universities are headed.

Academia needs the freedom to debate, not the violence to restrain.

Michael McGrady, a political consultant, is the executive director of McGrady Policy Research. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.