Free speech has been a hot topic on college campuses for the last couple years. Across the country, controversial speakers and events have challenged students to look closely at the First Amendment and how it applies to colleges and universities. With Milo Yiannopoulos’s on-campus appearance earlier this week and different minority students being the victims of threatening messages, members of our own campus continue to buzz about the issue. While most college campuses are finally beginning to reject the restrictive rhetoric of anti-free speech activists in favor of fostering an environment for open intellectual discussion, recent events continually challenge these rights.
The call for restricting free speech started with students interested in protecting marginalized identities on campus. One of the first incidents that garnered national attention concerned Yale University students outraged after a professor pushed back on an email that implored students to make thoughtful Halloween costume decisions. From a handful of cases, the issue expanded as universities adopted restrictive speech codes, designated “free speech zones,” and other administrative abuses of power to limit student expression.
Like most movements, there is undoubtedly an element of legitimacy and truth behind the concerns of these student groups and administrators. Safe spaces, microaggressions and trigger warnings reflect societal realities. We ought to consider our position within society and the opportunities that more marginalized individuals might not experience the same way. However, universities must maintain their characteristic of bringing together students from all kinds of backgrounds and exposing them to new, challenging ideas.
Additionally, the First Amendment protects all forms of speech. Free speech rights are not divisible; whether you find certain speech offensive, intolerant or hateful, the constitution protects all speech. And as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out, government-funded state colleges and universities must not violate this constitutional right.
Thankfully, recent stories from many colleges and universities, including UA, show that institutions of higher learning are starting to recognize and encourage students’ rights to free speech. At the beginning of the fall semester, the University of Chicago warned incoming students not to expect restrictive speech codes and encouraged them to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of censorship. Similarly, here at The University of Alabama, after much back and forth, the administration allowed controversial conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos to appear on campus last week. Victories like these are refreshing after many universities within recent years were quick to cave to fragile students’ unreasonable demands.
These victories, while to be celebrated, do not represent the end of the free speech war on this or any other campus. While Yiannopoulos was allowed to speak, the event was met with protests calling on speakers to restrict their views and speech while on campus to “foster an environment conducive to student success and well-being” as per the student code of conduct.
A full list of demands from the same student group was outlined in a letter to the UA president. The list also asks the University to revoke funds “given” to College Republicans for security for the Yiannopoulos event, or to extend the same funding to the other 519 student organizations on campus (costing the University over $3.5 million). Further, they called for the adjustment of the student code of conduct to make hate speech punishable by expulsion. It is important to note that the nearly $7,000 in security fees that were waived for College Republicans only came after it became clear that the University hiked security fees to prohibit the event from taking place. In reality, no favoritism or extra funding was given to College Republicans. The University only dropped fees after the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) provided legal assistance to put pressure on the university to drop the prohibitive fees. Free speech watchdog organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) also sent a letter calling out the University’s First Amendment violation.
The demands surrounding “hate speech” are in response to racially charged threats made by UA student Ryan Parrish to an African American individual. Parrish has been suspended indefinitely and arrested not for his use for unsavory language, but for using that language for harassment. In its public statement on the issue, the University explains that they do not “condone” racist speech, but support free speech. Student Government Association also seems to be moving on the issue, calling for an “officer of equity, diversity and inclusion” to be placed on the President’s Senior Leadership Cabinet within two weeks.
I urge SGA, the UA administration and student activist groups to continue to defend free speech and maintain their obligation of protecting students’ First Amendment rights as new policies are created in the wake of these events. Challenge those you disagree with. More speech, not less, is always the best retaliation against ignorance.
Lili Carneglia is a senior majoring in economics.
