Columbia University wrestles with free speech.
Seven out of ten students are uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic and one in four students said it was unclear whether their college administration protects free speech according to the most recent Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) college campus free speech survey. Further, campus deplatforming attempts of campus speakers has spiked by 400% since Hamas’ October 7th attack on Israel. Free speech and academic freedom are at risk on many college campuses and the recent campus unrest only accentuates an insidious problem that is plaguing colleges and universities across the country.
For historical perspective, on October 17, 2021, Princeton University alumni Stuart Taylor, Jr., and Edward Yingling published a call to arms in the Wall Street Journal, decrying the illiberal intolerance gripping academia and heralding the rise of a grassroots alumni movement aimed at restoring free speech and academic freedom on American college campuses. Their article, titled “Alumni Unite for Freedom of Speech,” sounded the alarm about the censorship and indoctrination engulfing higher education and put cloistered faculty and administrators on notice that alumni are no longer content to be passive bystanders or automatic cash dispensers.
The piece was the catalyst for the establishment of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA), an organization that is inspiring alumni nationwide to force a reckoning at their alma maters. Today, almost three years later, there are now twenty-seven affiliate college/university alumni free speech organizations, and their ranks are expanding. Each one of these alumni organizations has a singular mission to be a non-partisan, independent alumni organization advocating for free expression, viewpoint diversity, and academic freedom on college campuses. I co-founded the Columbia University affiliate of AFSA.
Separate but related, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) published their 2021 annual survey ranking the acceptance of free speech and open inquiry on college campuses. Columbia University was ranked dead last of 251 schools with an “abysmal” rating. The FIRE rankings evaluated several variables including self-censorship, comfort expressing ideas, tolerance for liberal and conservative speakers, disruptive conduct, openness and administrative support. The FIRE free speech rankings were recently updated for 2024, and Columbia University has “improved” to second to last of 251 colleges with an “abysmal” rating only to be surpassed for last place by Harvard University.
Little progress has been made during the last three years and the survey revealed some alarming trends. 65% of Columbia students say they have self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month. Seventy-five percent of students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable. Most concerning, 33% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is sometimes acceptable. A revealing comment by a Columbia student’s response to the FIRE survey is indicative of a suppressed free speech culture. “Most professors and classes assume progressive ideas as matters of fact. This is the framework for nearly every class. Most of the curriculum is curated to fit this narrative, so disagreeing on an assignment or in class requires student to do much of their own research and studying, whereas students in agreement are catered to.”
The history of intolerance of free speech on the Columbia campus came to a head during former Columbia President Minouche Shafik’s short reign when she twice had to call in New York City police to break up an encampment and later to arrest protestors who barricaded and vandalized an academic building. The show of force had negligible impact as all charges against the arrested protestors were dropped by Columbia University and many of the suspended students were reinstated. Many alumni were baffled by the university’s chaotic response to campus protests. However, given Columbia’s prior history of flagrant disregard for the application of the Chicago principles protecting free speech on campus, it was inevitable that university policies toward free speech would be ignored, and abhorrent and hostile behavior would flourish.
Where are we now? A recent task force of Columbia faculty issued this statement regarding the protests on campus during the last year “The demonstrations that roiled our campuses during the past academic year uncovered deep disagreements about the mission of our university. During those months, consensus around the University’s formal rules and informal norms of behavior broke down, interfering with our charge to educate students and engage in research. In addition, the testimonies of hundreds of Jewish and Israeli students have made clear that the University community has not treated them with the standard of civility, respect, and fairness it promises to all its students.”
In the vacuum of a firm university policy protecting free speech, protestors have asserted their disruptive protests as being protected free speech. On the contrary, AFSA advocates for free speech on campus, i.e., civil free speech, that includes the freedom to speak or publish views, but this does not include
- slander;
- libel;
- defamation of character;
- incitements to violence;
- exclusion of people due to their race, color, beliefs, or religion;
- violation of rules on time, place, and manner of behavior of expressions of speech.
The first five points are against the law. We expect people to follow the law, and we do not condone anyone breaking the law. The last point requires that established rules of academic institutions on how their property, buildings, and name are to be used and not abused.
With the spring semester underway, Columbia University’s plan is to continue to have New York City Police enforce closing the campus allowing only students, staff, and invited guests in hopes that the unrest will eventually subside. Ensconced on campus, there will be a mandatory institution-wide training as part of the university’s “Inclusion & Belonging” program. While a step in the right direction, AFSA recommends a series of reforms before civil free speech can be restored on campus.
- Universities must place much greater emphasis on free speech education and training for students, beginning with first-year student orientation but continuing, throughout the school year, with assemblies, events and debates.
- Universities need to publish in advance their rules on permissible forms of protest and free speech on campus, along with advance notice of what penalties students who fail to follow these rules will face. The importance of this is supported by a recent survey showing that a vast majority of college students did not know their school’s policies. Colleges should consider laying out these guidelines in the form of a “free expression contract” between the institution and the student, making the rules and expectations explicit in advance, to avoid confusion and inconsistent application of the rules later. Protests would be less disruptive if free speech ground rules are understood and enforced consistently.
- Universities must establish and publicize clear policies regarding guest speakers, along with clear expectations for how speakers are to be treated. Speaker sponsorship rules should be clearly published in advance, to avoid ad-hoc, arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement of rules during the semester.
- Universities must adopt a zero-tolerance policy for shout-downs of speakers, spelling out in advance what penalties students or faculty who engage in such actions will face.
- Universities must establish a free speech provost, ombudsman, or oversight committee, whose job it will be to conduct a top-down review of the school’s free speech policies, strengthen policies, better educate students and faculty on the rules, and encourage their consistent and unbiased enforcement. That individual or office also might be charged with commissioning periodic student surveys, aimed at measuring the free speech climate on campus.
- Universities must adopt a position of institutional neutrality when it comes to issuing official statements on political/policy questions unrelated to higher education or campus operations.
- Universities must adopt and proactively support the “Chicago Principles,” also sometimes called the “Chicago Trifecta,” which are widely heralded as the “Gold Standards” for protecting free speech and viewpoint neutrality/diversity on campus.
- Results need to be measured by an outside party. Columbia University should have an objective to obtain a “Good” to “Above Average” status in the annual FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) “College Free Speech Rankings”
Given the magnitude of these recommendations, changing the campus culture of Columbia University and many other academic institutions may involve more than elevating another academic as President. These initiatives are so sweeping in scope and involve a systemic change in culture that they require the skill set of a business turn-around professional at the helm, rather than an academic administrator who has limited experience outside of the Ivory Tower.
Author: Timothy N. Tracey is a Columbia and Harvard graduate who recently cofounded an AFSA affiliate – Columbia Free Speech Alliance.