Security Versus Free Speech On College Campuses
Officials must decide how to respond to the protests and violence that can come with free speech on college campuses.
Colleges— and specifically campus police— are often caught in the middle of student protests over controversial speakers. Photo by Pax Ahimsa Gethen.
Controversial speakers taking advantage of free speech in colleges and universities have forced campus officials to deal with waves of protests and violence in recent years, raising questions of tolerance for free speech on college campuses. Facing what are often massive security costs as well as ...
DON'T MISS A STORY Want FREE Unlimited Access Every Day?
Create your free account:
Campus Safety Gateway
"*" indicates required fields
By registering to become part of the Campus Safety community of readers, you gain FREE access to all of our articles and help our editors customize your experience. By giving us your email you understand that you may receive commercial email communications from Campus Safety (Emerald Expositions, LLC).
Already Signed Up?
Create your free account:
Campus Safety Gateway
"*" indicates required fields
Already Signed Up?
About the Author
Zach Winn, Senior Web Editor
Zach Winn is a journalist living in the Boston area. He was previously a reporter for Wicked Local and graduated from Keene State College in 2014, earning a Bachelor’s Degree in journalism and minoring in political science.
Related Content
One response to “Security Versus Free Speech On College Campuses”
Leave a Reply
Recommended For You
Student and Staff Safety: Addressing the Significant Rise in Mental Health Needs and Violence
In this webinar, attendees will learn the observable behaviors people exhibit as they head down a path of violence so we can help prevent the preventable.
Beyond Threat Assessment: Managing Threats with Appropriate Follow-up, Monitoring & Training
This discussion will help participants analyze, understand, and assess their own program effectiveness.
statements similar to that which Pen State used; “After critical assessment by campus police, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, we have determined that Mr. Spencer is not welcome on our campus, as this event at this time presents a major security risk to students, faculty, staff and visitors to campus,” read PSU’s statement. “It is the likelihood of disruption and violence, not the content, however odious, that drives our decision.” may also be a bit problematic, and I would think should be avoided because of the landmark Supreme Court Decision of Tinker V Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1968):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503#writing-USSC_CR_0393_0503_ZO
In this case part of the opinion reads, “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society”.
These free speech issues are difficult at best to understand and deal with. It really doesn’t matter how you approach it there will be litigation, on that you can depend. I think the best any of us can do is to come to a reasonable process that applies equally to all speakers and try to apply it equally. The line in the sand should always be that when there is violence it should be abruptly stopped and those responsible should be held accountable. Unfortunately none of us has a crystal ball. Any of these speakers or events have a potential to become violent, especially if we head down that slippery slope of allowing groups of people to decide what should and should not be heard through their use of violence and disruption.