Student Union
Should Only Some Speech Be Allowed on Campus?
Last month, a student group at Vermont’s Middlebury College invited Charles Murray, a political scientist and fellow at the prestigious conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, to speak on campus.
Murray was greeted by hundreds of protesters who shouted over him when he tried to speak. As the crowd refused to let up, college administrators escorted Murray to another building where he conducted his talk, with Middlebury professor Allison Stanger, via livestream.
As Stanger and Murray left the building, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protesters,” college spokesman Bill Burger said in a statement.
Protesters “violently set upon [their] car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and trying to prevent it from leaving campus,” Burger said.
Stanger was treated at a hospital emergency room and left wearing a neck brace following the violent confrontation with protesters, one of whom grabbed her by the hair and yanked her backward.
“I feared for my life,” Stanger later wrote in a post on Facebook.
Earlier this month, students at Claremont McKenna College in California targeted Heather Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar and prominent critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, with mob violence in response to her attempted speech.
MacDonald, who was also invited to speak on campus by a student group, saw protesters physically block the doors to the building where she was scheduled to speak. She was forced to deliver the speech via livestream, to a largely empty room, as the protesters refused to allow anyone to pass.
The protesters banged on windows and shouted from outside the building until “the cops decided that things were getting too chaotic and I should stop speaking," MacDonald later said of the incident.
Police officers then had to sneak MacDonald out the building’s back door so she could safely escape the protesters.
Following MacDonald’s doomed speech, more than two dozen students signed an open letter to one of the school’s president’s, David Oxtoby, assailing MacDonald as a “fascist” and a “white supremacist” and demanding Claremont “take action” against an independent student newspaper for its coverage of the protests and its “continual perpetuation of hate speech.”
“Why are you, and other persons in positions of power at these institutions, protecting a fascist and her hate speech and not students that are directly affected by her presence?” the students asked of Oxtoby.
Oxtoby had previously condemned the protests and defended MacDonald’s right to speak on campus, citing the college’s commitment to “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom.”
The students argued that MacDonald is a well-known figure, with her views well-documented, so refusing her a platform to speak didn’t violate her rights. Further, the students said, they consider MacDonald’s mere presence on campus “a form of violence.”
Incidents like the ones at Middlebury and Claremont have become increasingly common on American college campuses, according to Will Creeley, senior vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group promoting free speech for college students.
“It’s deeply troubling,” he told VOA in an interview. “We have seen an unfortunate outbreak of violence in response to controversial speakers on campus.”
“Capitulating to threats of violence only goes to further embolden that illiberal response,” Creeley said. “Violence at these events will beget more violence and we are seriously concerned that someone is going to get hurt.”
In a 2015 YouGov survey, 43 percent of students said, “Making sure that students have an environment free from discrimination, even if that means placing some limits on what students can say” should be more of a priority for colleges than protecting the “absolute right to free speech.”
A similar 2016 survey conducted by Gallup shows that, by a 52 percent to 42 percent margin, students believe that their institution should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of engaging in “hate speech.”
But, as Creeley told VOA, “there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
“There is an unfortunately prevalent problem of students being unaware of the extent of their rights and the rights of their peers,” he said.
This discussion over First Amendment rights came to a head this week when the University of California-Berkeley preemptively cancelled a scheduled speaking event by conservative provocateur Ann Coulter, citing concerns that the school couldn’t control a potentially violent reaction to Coulter’s presence.
The cancellation followed several violent incidents on the Berkeley campus this year, including a riot in February when far-right journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak. That incident resulted in more than $100,000 of damage to buildings on campus.
The school’s decision to cancel Coulter touched off a firestorm of controversy, leading Berkeley to reverse its move and reschedule Coulter’s talk at a time when less people would be on campus. This didn’t sit well with the student group that invited Coulter to campus, so, on Monday, they filed a lawsuit against the school alleging discrimination against the speaker.
“This case arises from efforts by one of California’s leading public universities, UC Berkeley – once known as the “birthplace of the Free Speech Movement” – to restrict and stifle the speech of conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy,” the lawsuit, filed by Harmeet Dhillon on behalf of the Berkeley College Republicans, reads.
A spokeswoman for the school, Diane Klein, called the allegation that Coulter is being unfairly punished for her political point of view “untrue.”
“The university welcomes speakers of all political viewpoints and is committed to providing a forum to enable Ann Coulter to speak on the Berkeley campus,” she said in a statement.
The university offered to let Coulter speak May 2, but Dhillon said this time slot is unacceptable, because students will be studying for finals.
Please leave a comment here, and visit us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn, thanks!
See all News Updates of the Day
Overall college enrollment is up, first-year enrollment down
For the second year since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, college enrollment has climbed in the United States.
But the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center noticed a substantial drop in the number of freshmen, which could be troubling for future enrollment, according to a report in Forbes. (October 2024)
South African universities embrace AI, seeing it as equalizing tool
The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT has sparked debate in higher education, raising questions about ethics and integrity in teaching, learning and knowledge creation. In South Africa, some academic institutions are taking a proactive approach, integrating AI into their curricula. Experts say this step is not only innovative but also helps level the playing field among students. Zaheer Cassim reports from Johannesburg.
International students may be able to get jobs at school
International students studying in the United States may be able to work on campus.
Jobs can include working in libraries, labs, food service and dormitories – but students will have to research the rules before applying for jobs, according to U.S. News & World Report. (September 2024)
Report says college rankings have the potential to mislead
Each year, prominent lists of college and university rankings are compiled and released to the public, but a report conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago says those rankings have the potential to mislead.
Writing in Forbes, Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier says changing methodologies can distort results, and profit motives can create doubt. He argues that rankings should be replaced by an objective rating system. (September 2024)
College athletes push for voter turnout while largely avoiding controversy as election nears
Lily Meskers faced an unexpected choice in the lead-up to the first major election she can vote in.
The 19-year-old University of Montana sprinter was among college athletes in the state who received an inquiry from Montana Together asking if she was interested in a name, image and likeness deal to support Sen. Jon Tester, a three-term Democrat seeking re-election. The group, which is not affiliated with the Tester campaign, offered from $400 to $2,400 to athletes willing to produce video endorsements.
Meskers, who is from Colorado but registered to vote in Montana, decided against the deal because she disagrees with Tester's votes on legislation involving transgender athletes in sports.
"I was like, OK, I believe that this is a political move to try to gain back some voters that he might have lost," Meskers said. "And me being a female student-athlete myself, I was not going to give my endorsement to someone who I felt didn't have the same support for me."
Professional athletes such as LeBron James, Colin Kaepernick and Stephen Curry have taken high-profile stances on hot-button topics and political campaigns in recent years, but college athletes are far less outspoken — even if money is available, according to experts in the NIL field. Being outwardly political can reflect on their school or endanger potential endorsement deals from brands that don't want controversy. It can certainly establish a public image for an athlete — for better or for worse — or lead to tensions with teammates and coaches who might not feel the same way.
There are examples of political activism by college athletes: A Texas Tech kicker revealed his support for former President Donald Trump on a shirt under his uniform at a game last week and a handful of Nebraska athletes a few days ago teamed up in a campaign ad against an abortion measure on the Tuesday's ballot.
Still, such steps are considered rare.
"It can be viewed as risky and there may be people telling them just don't even take that chance because they haven't made it yet," said Lauren Walsh, who started a sports branding agency 15 years ago. She said there is often too much to lose for themselves, their handlers and in some cases, their families.
"And these individuals still have to figure out what they're going to do with the rest of their lives, even those that do end up getting drafted," she added.
College coaches are not always as reticent. Auburn men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl has used social media to make it clear he does not support Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent in next week's presidential election. Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy once caused a stir with a star player for wearing a shirt promoting a far-right news outlet.
Blake Lawrence, co-founder of the NIL platform Opendorse, noted that this is the first presidential election in the NIL era, which began in July 2021. He said athletes are flocking to opportunities to help increase voter turnout in the 18-to-24 age demographic, adding that one of his company's partners has had 86 athletes post social media messages encouraging turnout through the first half of the week.
He said athletes are shying away from endorsing specific candidates or causes that are considered partisan.
"Student-athletes are, for the most part, still developing their confidence in endorsing any type of product or service," he said. "So if they are hesitant to put their weight behind supporting a local restaurant or an e-commerce product, then they are certainly going to be hesitant to use their social channels in a political way."
Giving athletes a voice
Many college athletes have opted to focus on drumming up turnout in a non-partisan manner or simply using their platforms to take stands that are not directly political in nature. Some of those efforts can be found in battleground states.
A progressive group called NextGen America said it had signed players in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia to encourage voting among young people. Another organization, The Team, said it prepped 27 college athletes in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Michigan to lead volunteer voter participation opportunities for students. The organization also said it got more than 625 coaches to sign a nonpartisan pledge to get their athletes registered to vote.
The Team's executive director is Joe Kennedy, a former coach who coordinated championship visits and other sporting events at the White House during President Barack Obama's administration. In early October, it hosted a Zoom event during which panelists such as NCAA President Charlie Baker and WNBA players Nneka Ogwumike and Natasha Cloud gave college athletes advice about using their platforms on campus.
In its early days, The Team seized upon momentum from the record turnout seen in the 2020 election. The NCAA that year said Division I athletes could have Election Day off from practice and play to vote. Lisa Kay Solomon, founder of the All Vote No Play campaign, said even if the athletes don't immediately take stands on controversial issues, it's important for them to learn how.
"It is a lot to ask our young people to feel capable and confident on skills they've never had a chance to practice," Solomon said. "We have to model what it means to practice taking risks, practice standing up for yourself, practice pausing to think about what are the values that you care about — not what social media is feeding into your brain, but what do you care about and how do you express that? And how do you do it in a way that honors the kind of future that you want to be a part of?"
Shut up and play?
Two years ago, Tennessee-Martin quarterback Dresser Winn said he would support a candidate in a local district attorney general race in what experts said was very likely the first political NIL deal by a college athlete.
There have been very few since.
The public criticism and fallout for athletes who speak out on politics or social issue can be sharp. Kaepernick, the Super Bowl-winning quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, hasn't played in an NFL game since January 2017, not long after he began kneeling during the national anthem at games.
Meskers, the Montana sprinter, said political endorsements through NIL deals could create problems for athletes and their schools.
"I just think that NIL is going to run into a lot of trouble and a lot of struggles if they continue to let athletes do political endorsements," she said. "I just think it's messy. But I stand by NIL as a whole. I think it's really hard as a student athlete to create a financial income and support yourself."
Walsh said it's easier for wealthy and veteran stars like James and Ogwumike to take stands. James, the Los Angeles Lakers star, started More Than a Vote — an organization with a mission to "educate, energize and protect Black voters" — in 2020. He has passed the leadership to Ogwumike, who just finished her 13th year in the WNBA and also is the president of the Women's National Basketball Players Association. More than a Vote is focused on women's rights and reproductive freedom this year.
"They have very established brands," Walsh said. "They know who they are and they know what their political stance is. They know that they have a really strong following that -- there's always going to be haters, but they're also always going to have that strong following of people who listen to everything that they have to say."
Andra Gillespie, an associate professor at Emory University who teaches African American politics, also said it is rare that a college athlete would make a significant impact with a political stand simply because they tend to have a more regional platform than national. Even celebrities like Taylor Swift and Eminem are better at increasing turnout than championing candidates.
"They are certainly very beneficial in helping to drive up turnout among their fans," Gillespie said. "The data is less conclusive about whether or not they're persuasive – are they the ones who are going to persuade you to vote for a particular candidate?"
Athletes as influencers
Still, campaigns know young voters are critical this election cycle, and athletes offer an effective and familiar voice to reach them.
Political and social topics are not often broached, but this week six Nebraska athletes — five softball players and a volleyball player — appeared in an ad paid for by the group Protect Women and Children involving two initiatives about abortion laws on Tuesday's ballot.
The female athletes backed Initiative 434, which would amend the state constitution to prohibit abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions. Star softball player Jordy Bahl said on social media that the athletes were not paid.
A University of Montana spokesperson said two athletes initially agreed to take part in the NIL deal backing Tester. The school said one withdrew and the other declined to be interviewed.
For Meskers, deciding against the offer boiled down to Tester twice voting against proposals to bar federal funds from going to schools that allow transgender athletes to play women's sports, a prominent GOP campaign topic. Tester's campaign said the proposals were amendments to government spending packages, and he didn't want to play a role in derailing them as government shutdowns loomed.
"As a former public school teacher and school board member, Jon Tester believes these decisions should be made at the local level," a Tester spokesperson said. "He has never voted to allow men to compete against women."
Meskers said she believes using influence as college athletes is good and she is in favor of NIL. She just doesn't think the two should mix specifically for supporting candidates.
"I think especially as student athletes, we do have such a big voice and we do have a platform to use," she said. "So I think if you're encouraging people to do their civic duties and get up and go (vote), I think that's a great thing."
