October 10, 2019
By Jonathan Butcher
According to popular legend, Georgetown University’s class of 1964 brought a bulldog to campus that would become the school’s mascot. The class wanted to name him “Hoya,” but the dog listened to only what he wanted to hear and would not respond to anything but “Jack.”
Earlier this week, protesters that included some Georgetown Law
students proved
that Jack’s origin story was a harbinger of things to come: A group of
demonstrators listened to only what they wanted to hear and shouted down acting U.S. Homeland Security
Secretary Kevin McAleenan. A group opposed to the Trump administration’s
immigration policies disrupted the acting Secretary’s remarks even after other
attendees “pleaded with them [the protesters] to let the event proceed,”
according to the Washington Post.
Despite the interruptions, McAleenan said, “As a career law enforcement professional, I’ve dedicated
my career to protecting the right to free speech and all the values we hold dear
in America, from all threats.” But the shouts and disturbances forced him off
the stage.
Some groups remain apologists for inappropriate
student behavior such as this. In a willful misrepresentation of the right to
free expression, some claim that “provocative speakers” stir up
“massive student protests,” as if the protesting students have no other option but to violate
someone else’s free speech rights when they hear things with which they
disagree. These excuses infantilize young adults, denying other people the
ability to listen and be heard and stifling the intellectual and emotional
growth of college students.
Fortunately, many observers understood that the
Georgetown disruption was unacceptable to speakers and audience members alike. Andrew Selee of the Migration
Policy Institute, the group hosting Georgetown’s event, tweeted, “Deeply
saddened that protesters decided to interrupt @DHSMcAleenan
during his speech at a conf organized by @MigrationPolicy @cliniclegal @GeorgetownLaw.
We need to hear from diverse perspectives in a democratic society, and the
audience lost the chance to engage w/him on policy.”
Erica Goldberg, a Visiting
Scholar at Georgetown Law School’s Center for the Constitution, tweeted,
“Respecting the rights of protesters does not mean allowing them to hijack
events that consist entirely of the exchange of ideas and are thus clearly part
of academic freedom and free speech values. Universities should honor their
primary goal of education, not social justice.”
As this blog covers
regularly, state lawmakers around the country are demonstrating that they
understand the importance of free expression. State officials in Alabama,
Arizona,
Georgia,
North Carolina,
and Wisconsin
have enacted proposals in recent years that protect everyone’s right to be
heard on public college campuses. The proposals follow in the footsteps of
critical U.S. Supreme Court decisions and position statements from the University of
Chicago and Yale
that say protecting students from ideas is not part of a university’s mission.
And the work continues.
Michigan lawmakers just referred a proposal
to that state’s House Committee on Judiciary that allows for peaceful protest and
the distribution of literature on public college campuses. The proposal
requires schools to adopt “a policy on free expression,” similar to the
University of Chicago statement on free speech that more than 60 schools
across the country have adopted.
Similar to the Goldwater
Institute’s analysis of campus speech protections, the Michigan proposal
allows faculty and students to take public positions on controversial topics,
even if those opinions run contrary to positions the school has adopted. The
proposal also requires schools to create freshman orientation programs that
discuss free speech.
Michigan lawmakers have
considered similar proposals
in recent years, and the current iteration is missing valuable provisions that
allow campus officials to sanction students that violate others’ expressive
rights, up to and including suspension and expulsion. Typically, school
officials can issue such consequences for behavior that is non-violent and does
not physically threaten others such as plagiarism and cheating. Holding
students accountable for their protests when these actions violate others’
expressive rights or are threatening acknowledges the college’s responsibility
to keep everyone safe on campus.
Bulldogs are stubborn by
nature, so we would be expecting too much if we wanted Jack to consider new
ideas. Yet certainly we should hold Georgetown students—and students in
Michigan and around the country—to a higher standard.
Jonathan Butcher
is a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
