ACROSS AMERICA, FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS UNDER INCREASING ATTACK
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
——————————————————————————————————————————
Free
speech used to be a valued aspect of the free and democratic American
society. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case. A recent survey
by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that 83% of
college students reported engaging in self-censorship, up from 60% in
2020. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, “The primary
reason students say they don’t express their authentic views, according
to Heterodox Academy survey, is fear of peers taking offense. Many even
worry that sharing their thoughts will cause others harm.”
Examples
of free speech being challenged are increasingly widespread. Recently,
University of Southern Maine graduate students walked out of class and
demanded officials replace their professor over her remarks. Christy
Hammer, a professor of education, allegedly said that only two sexes,
male and female, exist. This saw 21 out of 22 students walk out of
class. The professor refused to backtrack. The University suggested an
alternative section for the class be created, but is not at this point
planning to remove the professor.
“I
would argue that the culture of free speech is under attack in the
U.S.,” said Jacob Mchangama, the author of “Free Speech,” a book that
documents the history of free _expression_. “Without a robust culture of
free speech based on tolerance, the laws and constitutional protection
will ultimately erode. People on both the left and right are sort of
coming at free speech from different angles with different grievances,
that point to a general loss of faith in the First Amendment.”
Professor
John Powell of the University of California at Berkeley, who
specializes in civil liberties and democracy, said that classroom
prohibitions on expressing various points of view “is a very serious
freedom of speech issue to me.” He is especially alarmed at the record
number of books that are being banned in schools all over the country.
He points out that conservatives object to books about sex, gender
issues, and racial questions, such as Toni Morrison’s “Beloved,” and
“The 1619 Project,” and liberals object to books containing what they
believe are outdated racial depictions, including such classics as John
Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn,” and Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.”
To
the notion of not teaching material that will upset students, Powell
declares: “You can’t make the Holocaust a nice thing—-it wasn’t a nice
thing. You can’t make slavery a nice thing. ‘That makes people
uncomfortable.’ The goal of education is not comfort. So, if someone
really wants to challenge the Holocaust, then let them challenge it.
But don’t ban a discussion on it.”
A
recent survey by the Cato Institute showed that 62% of Americans
self-censor and are afraid to express their political views on specific
topics. Professor Mchangama notes that, “This shows a paradox:
Americans enjoy the strongest legal constitutional protection of free
speech probably in world history. But they still fear the consequences
of being fired for speaking out on certain political views. And that’s
not a healthy sign.”
On
some subjects, there is a concerted effort to stifle debate. When Human
Rights Watch and Amnesty International accused Israel of practicing
“apartheid” in its treatment of Palestinians, both groups were attacked
as “antisemitic.” Yair Lapid, then Israeli Foreign Minister, attacked
Amnesty International in those terms and Jonathan Greenblatt of the
Anti-Defamation League declared that opposition to Zionism is
“antisemitism,” despite the fact that many of Zionism’s strongest
critics are Jewish. In fact, Shulamit Aloni, a former Israeli Minister
of Education, explained the tactic of calling critics of Israel
“antisemitic.” She declared: “It’s a trick. We always use it. When
from Europe someone is criticizing Israel, we bring up the Holocaust.
When in the U.S., people are criticizing Israel, then they are
‘antisemitic.’” This tactic has made many hesitate to criticize Israeli
actions in the occupied territories. In Israel itself, criticism of
government policy is more difficult to categorize as “antisemitic.” The
Israeli human rights organization B’tselem has issued reports similar
to those of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Anthony
DiMaggio, a political scientist at Lehigh University, points out that,
“It appears that free speech is increasingly endangered in contemporary
American society…Most of the talk has been about the intolerance of
liberal ‘cancel culture’ or big tech platforms that are deplatforming
the right-wing politicians and public intellectuals.”
The
Christian Science Monitor points out that, “The deeper free speech
issues on the left and right are centered around the nation’s
deep-seated conflicts over race, including various campus speech codes
and prohibitions against hate speech.”
Kenneth
Lasson, a professor of civil liberties and international human rights
at the University of Baltimore School of Law points out that, “Those
with opinions that might challenge campus orthodoxies are rarely invited
and often disinvited after having been scheduled, or shouted down or
otherwise disrupted. When protestors embroil visiting speakers , or
break in on meetings to take them over and list demands, or even resort
to violence, administrators often choose to look the other way.”
I
remember a time when freedom of speech was welcome on college and
university campuses. During the Vietnam War, I was working in the U.S.
Senate and was on the staff of the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee. In that capacity, I studied the emerging anti-war
movement and groups such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
which became part of the New Left. I traveled around the country to
participate in debates with New Left spokesmen on many college
campuses. After these debates, I often went out for a drink with those
with whom I had been debating. We continued our discussion. There was
no feeling on either side of the debate that both sides should not be
heard. In retrospect, I now find myself in agreement with some of the
points made by my debate opponents. Today, sadly, universities no
longer seem to welcome both sides of controversial questions.
The
idea of silencing those with whom we disagree is contrary to the values
of a free and democratic society. Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at
the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, points to the fact that,
“At universities, America’s founding promise of individual freedom and
equality under law is often threatened as irredemiably tainted by
racism and sexism, colonialism and imperialism. In some cases, free
speech is placed on the list of ‘incorrect phrases’ that ought not to be
uttered, because it belongs among the ‘impure thoughts’ of which minds
must be cleansed. Ninety per cent of American universities censor
speech or maintain policies that could authorize administrators to
engage in censorship.”
While
some of these rules may be well intentioned to provide a safe and
welcoming environment for students and faculty, they represent a
rejection of free speech which has significant costs. When someone says
something with which we disagree, should we silence them? In 1927,
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis responded: “The remedy to be
applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” We would do well to
remember—-and follow—-Justice Brandeis’s advice.
##