Jewish World Review August 28, 2003 /30 Menachem-Av, 5763

Terry Eastland

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange | In a July letter to colleges and universities across the country, Gerald Reynolds, head of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, addressed "a subject," as he put it, "of central importance to our government, our heritage of freedom and our way of life: the First Amendment." Mr. Reynolds' office doesn't have the authority to bring lawsuits to enforce the First Amendment. What, you might wonder, possessed him to write a letter about it?

The answer begins with the fact that hundreds of colleges and universities have policies restricting speech that the First Amendment protects. Called "speech codes" when initiated in the 1980s - ironically by a generation of professors who in their youth supported the free speech movement of the 1960s - the policies have taken on new guises. Often, they are expressed in vague rules against harassment and target speech deemed to offend a person or group.

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, for example, loosely defines harassment as "unsolicited, unwanted conduct which annoys, threatens or alarms a person or group." The school says it will protect only speech that doesn't "provoke, harass, demean, intimidate or harm another."

Even when not enforced, as often appears to be the case, the restrictive policies promote an educational environment that discourages intellectual exchange. The ever vigilant Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports the attempt by students at Ithaca College last spring to get campus police to stop a speech sponsored by College Republicans (the speaker was Bay Buchanan, her topic "the failures of feminism") and have it declared a "bias-related incident" punishable under school rules. The attempt to censor failed, and the event was held. But the school's "Bias-Related Incidents Committee" now is exploring policies that could prohibit similar speeches in the future.

Now, what particularly interests Mr. Reynolds is that some schools defend their speech policies by saying they are required by the government - specifically, the Office for Civil Rights. Because we receive federal funds, they say, we must abide by the anti-discrimination regulations that the office administers. Yet to comply with those rules, we must regulate the content of such speech as might be deemed "offensive." That is, to protect civil rights we must curtail civil liberties. In sum, the government makes us do what we do.

Donate to JWR

Were the pertinent laws and regulations not on the books, the schools making that argument no doubt would keep the censorship policies they already have. After all, they believe in them.

In his letter, Mr. Reynolds concedes none of their disingenuous argument. "I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms," he writes, "that [the Office for Civil Rights'] regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected" under the Constitution. Indeed, the laws on which those regulations are based "are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech."

Mr. Reynolds specifically addresses harassment, which under the law can include "verbal or physical conduct." Some schools, he reports, have interpreted the office's prohibition of harassment as encompassing "all offensive speech regarding sex, disability [or] race." Yet mere words, symbols or thoughts "that some person finds offensive" aren't enough to establish harassment. There must be more. Indeed, the conduct must be so "severe, persistent or pervasive" as to limit a student's educational opportunity.

The First Amendment binds the states and, therefore, state institutions of higher education. The Reynolds letter underscores the vulnerability of speech-restricting state schools to lawsuits brought by students (or faculty members) claiming First Amendment violations.

At the same time, the letter sends an important message to private schools receiving federal funds (as most do). The First Amendment doesn't apply to those schools. Yet, as Mr. Reynolds explains, that doesn't mean they have the Office for Civil Rights' permission to limit speech in ways more restrictive than the First Amendment allows. A private school embarking on such a project, he writes, "does so on its own accord."

The Reynolds letter ought to stimulate a rethinking in higher education about its essential purposes and how they should be pursued. As Mr. Reynolds said in an interview, the key question here is "whether the kind of intellectual engagement that every self-respecting university says it wants to promote is compatible with restrictions on speech" that the Constitution protects.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2002, Terry Eastland