Recently, FIRE held its first Faculty Conference and the subject was free speech on our campuses. In “Notes from the Free Speech Undeground,” Professor Rob Jenkins reports on the event for the Martin Center.

Jenkins has some good news to report. For one thing, the defense of free speech is not only a conservative/libertarian concern. He writes, “If you assumed conference attendees must have been predominantly conservative, you would be wrong. In fact, it was by far the most heterodox group I have ever had the pleasure to associate with. While conservatives were well represented, so were liberals, progressives, and libertarians, as well as most religious traditions and all major academic disciplines.”


So the Left hasn’t completely turned its back on free speech for those who don’t agree with their beliefs. A few are even willing to risk the outrage of social-justice-warrior types for consorting with FIRE.

Jenkins found agreement on five big points:

1. Speech is not violence. (That bit of modern-day Orwellian newspeak was pretty much universally rejected.) 2. “Hate speech” is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment. 3. The primary role of the university in society should be to promote and protect free inquiry. 4. To learn and grow intellectually, students MUST be exposed to points of view with which they disagree, even if they find them offensive. 5. Free speech is currently under attack in the academy, and faculty members and administrators are primarily responsible (although student “snowflakes,” helicopter parents, and Republican legislators all also received votes).

Jenkins also goes into several of the panels at the conference. Here’s one I find particularly interesting — what is the nature of “harm”? The campus leftists are always defending their attacks on free speech by claiming that they are protecting against harm. He writes:

Two philosophers — Andrew Cohen of Georgia State University and Shane Courtland of West Virginia University — explored the nature of “harm.” Cohen began by reminding us of John Stuart Mill’s famous dictum that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” But what, he asked, constitutes harm? Quoting Joel Feinberg, in The Moral Limits of Criminal Law, he defined it as “wrongful setbacks to interest.” He then argued that offensive speech does not constitute harm because it is not “wrongful” — that is, it is protected by law in the form of the First Amendment. Courtland went even further, arguing that offensive speech is not only permissible but necessary for students to learn and grow. “A no-offense society,” he avowed, “is a no-knowledge society.”



Jenkins found much food for thought at FIRE’s conference and concludes with this,

Speaking of food for thought, I’ll leave with this nugget. As we were discussing the current challenges to free speech on campus, one attendee suggested that the “customer model” might be partly to blame — that students feel entitled to hear only ideas they approve, since they’re “paying for them.” The presenter responded: “I think the customer model is exactly right. We’ve just done a poor job of marketing our product. Students think we’re selling degrees when what we’re really selling is an education.”