Free Speech on Campus

by Thomas Schmitt

The stated topic for GBC’s October 11^th roundtable was “Free Speech on Campus.” Was it just an excuse to talk about Michael Knowles? Maybe… but we were able to expand our discussion and tackle some questions at the forefront of the Georgetown student body’s conscience. Of these questions, we devoted the most time to the following: What criteria should determine whether a particular speaker can come to campus? And, to what extent does de facto repression of free speech occur on campus even when there may be few de jure limitations? 

After touching on Knowles, we went back-and-forth, presenting different hypothetical and actual past Georgetown guest speakers. Members disagreed, often fiercely, about whether an individual speaker ought to be allowed at Georgetown. Yet, we agreed with almost no debate on a single criterion to permit a speaker at Georgetown: “Georgetown should not prohibit a speaker from coming to campus unless that speaker has, or is likely to, incite violence against a specific individual or group of people.” This provided a sturdy foundation for the rest of our conversation. However, two issues emerged from this criterion on which we spent a significant amount of time. 

First, “Georgetown should not prohibit” speakers, which only applies to speakers brought by clubs or groups not associated with the school administration. Some members took a stricter approach to the speakers that Georgetown (i.e., GU Politics, Georgetown Lecture Fund) ought to bring or avoid. Last year, the conversation with Mike Pence (GU Politics) sparked significant controversy on campus. Some students didn’t object to him coming in and of itself, so long as they could voice their dissent in a manner abiding by Georgetown’s code of conduct. Others, however, claimed that Pence’s policies and rhetoric constituted hate speech and that it was irresponsible of Georgetown to invite him. Is it appropriate for Georgetown to invite speakers whom many on campus consider to have offensive and potentially dangerous ideas? On that, we did not reach a consensus.

The second complication for our criterion was, of course, that everyone has a different definition of “incite violence.” The example that we lingered on the longest was Michael Knowles, specifically, his CPAC comment that “Transgenderism must be eradicated.” This is about as borderline a case as there is. The comment is hateful at best and fascistic at worst. The eradication of an identity is necessarily violent, whether it involves literally beating and killing people or not. Knowles is the kind of speaker we had no trouble agreeing Georgetown should not bring. However, he was invited by GUCR. If Georgetown wants to stick as closely as possible to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, the criteria for prohibiting his visit would be as follows:

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Knowles’ statement was closer to a broad, intentionally provocative declaration than a specific call for imminent action. Moreover, nobody who is being honest would argue that Knowles’ visit to Georgetown was remotely “likely” to produce violent action on campus. Georgetown can do what it pleases; it is a private institution. It could create its own policy for allowing speakers and use an iron fist to enforce it. But if that policy were to stray notably from the law, Georgetown would be taking an ideological stance on the speakers that it allows. This could hinder the political diversity that the institution purports to foster.  

On a level more applicable to students’ everyday lives, we talked about the political climate at Georgetown and how it might implicitly limit certain kinds of speech. Namely, we recognized that Georgetown’s student (and even professorial) body is predominantly liberal, which can create an uncomfortable predicament for more right-leaning students. On such a politically minded campus, personal politics can affect reputation to the extent of dramatic social ostracization. We try to create a space free from that at Bipartisan, but needless to say, the campus-at-large is not GBC. Moreover, some members at the roundtable expressed that they felt unable to honestly present their opinions in class, fearing that it might impact their grades. Even if the rule is that professors must respect all viewpoints, some certainly don’t make much effort to integrate that rule into the class culture. Several members shared accounts of professors arguing passionately and consistently for a certain ideology, with little equivocation and no request for a different perspective. The resulting student discussion is, of course, an echo chamber.

While we found it regrettable that the culture at Georgetown often forces people into politically isolated cliques, we didn’t see much that the University could do to change that policy-wise. The fact is that most US college students lean left, and we can’t force people to be friends with each other. On the other hand, the issue of classroom culture might have more potential for reform. I am of the opinion that it is essential for Georgetown to hire opinionated Professors. Some of the best Professors I have had have been unapologetic advocates for their own viewpoints. However, a great professor also deliberately creates an environment where real, honest discourse is encouraged, including challenging the professors’ beliefs. The Professors who fail to do this often lecture not out of passion but because they are high on their own perceived intellectual and moral superiority. Those professors need to go. And when a department is evaluating a candidate for the tenure track, this had better be part of their consideration. 

Though the members at the roundtable disagreed on terminological and policy specifics, our sentiments reflected the core of the Bipartisan coalition. Our sentiments suggested a desire to seek as many different ideas through campus discourse as possible without jeopardizing safety or risking social alienation. And, as always, we lamented Georgetown’s inability to realize this ambition.