October 26, 2019
By Jonathan Butcher
Sympathy is hard to find in conversations about
politics. But at recent events on college campuses, this response is in
especially short supply toward disruptive mobs with a political axe to grind. For
the second time in two weeks, demonstrators intent on canceling an event have shouted
down an invited speaker, and on both occasions, observers on the right and
left, on- and off-campus, were quick to condemn the censorship.
On Wednesday, a student
mob at UPenn blocked a speech from former U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Director Tom Homan. A video posted
on CampusReform.org
shows students shouting over at least two adults who tried to maintain order.
The protesters had already circulated a petition demanding
that campus officials only invite certain speakers to campus. This attempt to
show support for “human rights” ironically issued a totalitarian order that some
government officials are not allowed.
When the UPenn disruptors managed to stop the event
just as it was to begin, the reaction from other students was not sympathetic.
Homan told Fox News, “The sad part is – I was watching the reaction on their [students’] faces – they were [as] disgusted as I was,” Homan said. “They were there to ask pointed questions.”
UPenn’s College
Republicans Communications Director Corey Paredes told
CampusReform: “[I]t is disappointing that such a right would be used in an
attempt to silence the speech of an upstanding civil servant.”
Even PEN America, a progressive organization, said
the UPenn demonstration was out of line. PEN told Inside Higher
Ed, “[The] protesters here both
violated the rights of other audience members, and squandered an opportunity to
challenge a former public official, rendering the possibility of engaging in
debate, criticism, or even shaming, effectively null.”
Earlier this month at Georgetown University Law School, a group that included law students
shouted down acting U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin
McAleenan. McAleenan wanted to “start a dialogue” but “apparently, [I] didn’t get that opportunity.”
I wrote in the Detroit News last week that the shoutdown was quickly criticized:
Andrew Selee of the Migration Policy Institute, the group hosting Georgetown’s event, tweeted, “Deeply saddened that protestors 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 for Georgetown Law School’s Center for the Constitution, tweeted: “Respecting the rights of protestors 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.”
William M. Treanor, the Dean of Georgetown University
Law Center issued
a statement saying, “We
share our partners’ regret that the audience did not get to hear from the Secretary…Georgetown
Law is committed to free speech and expression and the ability of speakers to
be heard and engage in dialogue.”
Georgetown and UPenn are private schools,
so school officials must decide whether to make an example of the disruptive
students that would encourage others not to block events. But state lawmakers
reading the headlines on campus activity should consider the policies
protecting expression at public colleges from states such as Alabama and
Wisconsin. In those states, legislation and university policies direct school
officials to consider consequences for protesters that violate others’ free
speech rights.
It’s good to know that campus officials object to
shout-downs after the incidents occur, but school leaders must explain that
this behavior is unacceptable before the events take place, too. Incorporating
discussions about the importance of free speech into freshman orientation and adding
the school’s commitment to free inquiry to student handbooks are also valuable
provisions found in state legislative proposals in places such as Arizona and
North Carolina.
After mobs apply the heckler’s veto, students who
wanted to attend an event should insist that they want to listen and be heard as
well. Still, the adults on campus should be protecting free speech for everyone
so that students have more options than to try to speak out after it’s gone.
Jonathan Butcher is a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
