Recent Events, Free Speech, & the Purpose of College
Recent attempts at silencing dissent in the U.S. are frightening. They are not surprising; history has a way of repeating itself, especially when its a swinging pendulum. In the 1980s, many colleges instituted speech codes ostensibly meant to protect minorities on their campuses from hateful speech. Soon enough, those codes were used to punish minorities when they spoke against majority students. (See Chemerinsky and Gillman, ch 3, especially 74-81; see also 109.) Fortunately, those speech codes were mostly removed after they were judged unconstitutional and thus impermissible on campuses of state schools.
The more recent but parallel story is the rise of “woke” (and “emotester,” per this earlier post) students (and some professors) shouting down speakers. As in the earlier case, this too was soon turned upside down. Now we have government entities doing more than shouting. The federal government is seeking to deport college students that dissent from its approved views and to punish colleges that allow such dissent. Efforts to maintain content neutrality can no longer be assumed.
Content neutrality is part of recognized free speech law in the USA. Government is not supposed to interfere with speech because of its content. Government is allowed to limit speech based on time, place, and manner—so long as it treats all speakers and their content equally. If neo-Nazis are not allowed to hold a rally on Main Street during rush hour (a legitimate time and place restriction), Gay Pride activists would face the same restriction, for example.
Free speech law in accord with what I’ve just noted applies to all speakers in government facilities, including state schools such as my own Georgia State University. Most private universities accept similar rules though they aren’t legally bound by the same laws.
I’d suggest here the reason why most universities accept these sorts of rules has to do with the purpose of universities. There is significant debate about the purpose of higher education. Some believe, for example, that its purpose is to discover and propagate truth. I believe, by contrast, that the purpose of universities is to help young adults become well-developed, well-rounded, rationally autonomous persons. In the process, as things are, we discover and propagate truth—perhaps because rationally autonomous persons are naturally interested in truth. This is an excellent byproduct, not the essence, of university life; we would need colleges even if we knew everything there is to know.
(Something of an aside: it’s unfortunate that many today think of colleges as career training centers. This is misguided. It’s true that, historically, those with college educations have had more remunerative careers but I suggest that this is because rationally autonomous individuals were more able to perform valuable services than others. When colleges seek to be training centers, they give up on that goal and train people for specific careers—careers which may only provide good pay temporarily. Classic college education is better.)
What does the content neutrality requirement of free speech law have to do with helping young adults become rationally autonomous? Stating the question might make the answer jump out. To be rationally autonomous is to be able to independently think through an issue, discursively sorting through reasons provided from all sides—those in favor, those opposed, those unsure, etc.—to determine what one should believe. Doing this without people speaking out for their views may be possible, but it would be difficult. Having people provide their own views—speaking out about them—helps us learn to reason well. It gives us practice in hearing and processing those views, thereby helping us decide for ourselves what we ought to believe. We need dissent, in other words, so that we can develop or maintain our reasoning skills—helping us to become rationally autonomous. This is what colleges are meant to provide.
To stay with the recent controversy, those who are pro-Israel will be short-changed on college campuses when they are unable to hear pro-Palestinian views from those who would passionately share them. Those who are pro-Palestinian would be similarly short-changed if they are unable to hear pro-Israeli views from those who would passionately share them. Both sets of people would be short-changed if they are unable to hear those who understand that both Jews and Palestinians have suffered. When each of these three groups (and others) hear from each other, they are encouraged to think through the various views and the reasons behind them. They are encouraged to develop their rational autonomy. (And when they can readily do so, to repeat an earlier point, they are capable of figuring out what to do in any situation—making them more productive and thus likely to have higher paying careers.)
The point of college is help young adults become rationally autonomous people. College is thus hugely valuable to those who are lucky enough to attend. There is more. Because students are trained to become rationally autonomous, they are capable of seeing through the bullshit thrown out by ideologues of all sorts. They are less likely to be in need of belonging to a “team” or political “side;” more likely to be capable of adopting moderate views where appropriate, extreme views when they are appropriate, or combinations of views that others mistakenly think cannot fit together. In short, those who receive a classic college education—not one designed for career training—are likely to resist polarization and thus be able to help protect and promote liberal democratic regimes. This is another excellent byproduct of college education.
In short, free speech on campus is necessary for colleges to provide what they are meant to provide: rational autonomy. When it is present, students grow to be interested in truth and they are less likely to be co-opted by ideologues who thrive on polarization and misinformation.
Some will point out that college students don’t currently seem any better than others in regard to being rationally autonomous, interested in the truth, or steering clear of ideologues. If true, this is an indictment of what colleges have become, not what they are meant to be. We need to encourage colleges to return from trendy careerist programing (per the above “aside”) and ideological commitments to their classic goal: promoting the independent thinking that comes with rational autonomy.
A note: If you are interested in pursuing a master’s degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, now is the time! Apply to study with my colleagues and I at GSU. See here for information and to apply. Deadline for the Fall 2025 semester is April 30!