Free Speech on Campus

by Erwin Chemerinsky, Howard Gillman

Can free speech coexist with an inclusive campus environment?

“An urgent and indispensable roadmap to guide us through one of the most divisive periods in American history.”—Stephen Rohde, Los Angeles Review of Books

Hardly a week goes by without another controversy over free speech on college campuses. On one side, there are increased demands to censor hateful, disrespectful, and bullying expression and to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory learning environment. On the other side are traditional free speech advocates who charge that recent demands for censorship coddle students and threaten free inquiry. In this clear and carefully reasoned book , a university chancellor and a law school dean—both constitutional scholars who teach a course in free speech to undergraduates—argue that campuses must provide supportive learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body but can never restrict the expression of ideas. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the importance of free speech on campus and offers clear prescriptions for what colleges can and can’t do when dealing with free speech controversies.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law, Politics, Education, History, School

224 pages, Paperback

First published September 12, 2017

Reviews

[Alina Matejkowski · Rating 1 out of 5]

No one can say I don’t engage with centrist takes ever again. Sucked ass tho

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite the fan of this book, it's not at all demeaning or condescending towards people who have qualms (soz love that word) with how speech is used on campus. The authors get that you need to create a relatively safe space in order to allow people of vast backgrounds feel comfortable in the learning environment. They also understand why people are so passionate about safe spaces but they firmly believe in the right to free speech and I think I agree.

Hate speech is not a crime in the US (speech that is a call to violence is a crime in the US, which is merely a subsect of European hate speech laws) and therefore cannot be a crime in public universities. The authors go on to say it should not be an offence in private universities either obvs. The more I've thought about this topic the more it make sense, universities ideally are an arena for intense debate about difficult issues. Forcing people to not express their views isn't going to make people more empathetic it's going to further the divide. European hate speech laws in my opinion haven't really helped make a more inclusive society, they just make people feel like they can only say things behind closed doors and then they vote for the alt right and everyone's shocked that the polls were wrong. Not saying Europe and America are that comparable because the history is vastly different, but hate speech laws don't really seem to fix the issue. More speech seems to be the answer to argue against views one holds to be demeaning rather than enforcing silence. (sidenote Obama had response to hate speech policies that sums up this point pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da...)

I get that I would have trouble understanding why a lot of students are so adamant on safe spaces and trigger warnings and all that jazz seeing as I'm white and middle class and whatnot so I just tried to reason this with things that would effect me personally. I don't think I would be against Pro Israeli groups coming to my university even if their leader had said death to all Palestinians or that arabs are scum SO LONG AS the format of their speech allows you to respond back, ask questions and tell them why they're wrong. When that Milo guy was coming to uni, it pissed me off but I think looking back it was a bad reaction. Like silencing him isn't really going to fix the issue, the journalism society turning it into a debate or including a Q&A at the end is the best option. Everyone should feel safe to the point that they never feel any physical harm, bullying, or that they can't even be in a classroom because of intense hostility, but otherwise I'd rather not be in a bubble where only people who agree with me are allowed to be express themselves, that seems spookier to me than someone saying a shit ton of racist shit about arabs or saying all women deserve rape or something.

When you think of the history of free speech, you realise the importance of maintaining it. You never know what speech we consider now to be fucked up that will eventually become the norm. A lot of movements I believe in would not have been possible if these hate speech policy existed then. For example, the ability to protest the Vietnam war would not have been possible under current hate speech policies due to the chants and signs students put up but those protests were what helped change public opinion. I dunno I think there's a line and we've sort of cross too far over into censorship for my taste but always keen to hear that I'm wrong so HMU. SOZ for the long review but had a real good time with this book.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agreed with many of the authors' ideas, and I think this book makes for really great class discussion. They make some excellent suggestions for how campuses should handle hate speech that administrators can put into practice, which was really refreshing. I also really appreciated that they showed both sides of the issue (why students want speech controlled and why it shouldn't be) without taking the classic stance of "this generation is so coddled and needs to get over it." I still disagree with them on some issues since I'm much more on the side of hate speech often being harmful speech that should be regulated. But there are a great many nuances to the situation. This book made me rethink some of my viewpoints and helped me to strengthen others.
However, a lot of their argument rested on past Supreme Court decisions. While that may convince a lot of people, I am not one to believe that a law is right just because the courts said so sixty years ago. That may play a factor in deciding how the law should work now, but as the world is constantly changing and, hopefully, improving, how we view and implement certain laws should evolve. So I wasn't entirely convinced by all of their arguments, but they definitely brought up some great points.
This is a great read if you're a college student or professor, especially if you're concerned about issues of free speech and hate speech on your campus.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors of this book proceed with slightly more nuance than you'll see in some of the current "campus wars" discourse, but they still take many over-hyped media stories about threats to campus speech at face value, repeating distortions that appeared in partisan media accounts of specific incidents. For example, they get the time-line of the Yiannopoulos west coast protests in early 2017 wrong. On January 20, 2017, a right-wing activist shot a protester outside the Yiannoupolos talk at UW. This story, despite the fact that the person shot nearly died, was not widely publicized until after the Berkeley protest in February, where the majority of action was property damage. The fact that someone was shot by an alt-right activist was an influence on tactics and sense of threat at the later protest, since both groups of activists engaged in these conflicts are known to each other and have had a long history of conflict. The authors also fail to accurately represent the concept of "microagressions" which they describe simply as being about the use of specific words and terms.

[Giana Ricci · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely well cited and thought through. I appreciated the admiration for this current generation of college students with the simultaneous recognition that educators have a responsibility to teach them why free speech, even offensive speech, must be protected. I wish all first year college students could read this!

[Isaac · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was quite possibly the strongest case I've ever seen for the radical centrist view of speech on campus. 2/5 stars.

[CJ Venable · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chemerinsky and Gillman offer a brief but thorough overview of the history and legal precedent surrounding the Free Speech Movement and its modern effects. Their coverage of what, legally, institutions of higher education can do in regards to speech is clear and well-justified with court cases and their rationale. For example, their discussion of how, technically "fighting words" exceptions from 1st amendment protections are still on the books but all attempts at using "fighting words" justifications have been overturned by the courts makes clear that speech codes that seek to use this exemption to regulate protected speech are likely to fail if challenged. I definitely feel as though I am better informed as to the legal landscape of speech and higher education as a result of reading this book.

However, their defense of a traditional "the best remedy for offensive speech is more speech" approach is banal and underwhelming. For example, the authors use Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, who wrote "The Bell Curve", as an example of how more speech was a counter to the plainly racist findings of Herrnstein and Murray ["The Bell Curve" argued that differences in outcomes for White and Black people were becuase Black people are inherently less intelligent and thus less capable of the kind of success that White people achieved; they denied the role of systemic disadvantage or oppression as a force influencing social stratification]. After noting the various criticisms of Herrnstein and Murray's work, Chemerinsky and Gillman argue, "the example illustrates our basic point: rather than being worse off because such an argument was allowed to circulate, society was much better off because others had an opportunity to subject the book to the highest standards of academic scholarship and provide compelling refutation of its methodology and conclusions" (p. 64). But does this illustrate their point, that more speech negates the harmful *societal* effects of ideas which are patently racist?

I do not believe so. While it is possible that the *campus* was better off for being able to debate the merits of "The Bell Curve", it is hard to convincingly argue that *society* is better off, if only becuase modern-day racists continue to use racial pseudo-science like "The Bell Curve" to justify their view that non-White people are fundamentally inferior to White people. While college-educated people may benefit from reasoned debate of ideas and ultimately reject unsound ones--something that Chemerinsky and Gillman, along with many scholars of higher education, are unable to prove--American society at large, the majority of whom have not pursued a college education, are influenced in pernicious ways by oppressive ideas that have only a veneer of substance covering a core of dubious claims.

Academic argumentation aside, Chemerinsky and Gillman do examine the notion of dignitary harm, a subject of much debate. The authors concede that hate speech intended to do nothing more that demean and deride does pose a dignitary harm to those already most harmed by systems of power and oppression. They simply do not believe that these harms are serious enough to outweigh the supposed benefits of free speech. Or perhaps a solution is simply too complex: the authors believe there is no workable solution to banning hate speech that will still allow institutions to pursue new and controversial ideas in keeping with the spirit of academic freedom and the mission of the university. So either the dignitary harms are not that bad, or they are, but the alternative (curtailed speech) is worse. Given how strongly the authors advocate for free speech protections for both public and private institutions, I am inclined to believe that it is a bit of both. Perhaps these harms are real, but those suffering at the hands of hate speech are the ones who must make a sacrifice for free speech for all. And the authors are quick to point out that speech codes are regularly used against minoritized or liberal students--but this too is unsurprising. Regardless of the configuration, existing policies (both for free speech and for curtailing speech) leave unchanged the systems of power and control that privilege certain individuals and ontologies on campus. It is no wonder that, regardless of what the content of the policy is, all policies related to speech ultimately serve the interests of those already in power.

What is not addressed by Chemerinsky and Gillman, what is perhaps unthinkable to them, is what the university would look like if academic freedom and the mission of the university (which is deeply linked to the White imperialist nation-building ideals of the entire American project) were actually up for debate. How might things look differently if minoritized students were not again asked to bear the burden of our high-minded ideal, if there backs were not again the platform upon which the university was built? Perhaps the university would be no university at all. The question then becomes: can we justify the university if it must be built, not just historically, but in an ongoing and active way, upon the bodies and spirits of minoritized students? In the meantime, while the authors advocate for universities to do both--stridently defend the right for even overt neo-Nazis or homophobes to come to campus and be heard (they specifically denounce no-platforming in all its forms) while also assuring students that their dignity and safety are deeply valued--it is hard to see how this could offer much solace. Do as I say, not as I do, I suppose. Just another day at a university.

[Kevin Parkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book! It was very thought-provoking, so even if I didn't agree with all of it, it was still an enjoyable read. I also felt like the authors were genuine. They appear to be hardcore free speech advocates, and they are responding to current trends that they feel encroaches free speech rights. However, they do so with respect. They aren't saying, "Kids these days are too soft!" The respect and value where people are coming from, and seem to model the type of respectful debate they advocate for.

Further, I will say they compelled me a bit. That said, I wasn't entirely convinced of their position.

They believe that free speech is a near sacrosanct right. I can certainly agree with them that it is important. The problem is, the authors seem to hold steadfast to this with religious zeal. In the real world, I don't think that's realistic or desirable, if for no other reasons than occasionally, two of our values seem to compete with each other. I think in practical terms, there are times in which we have to choose between two values that we care a lot about. When that happens to, for example, free speech and inclusion, I'm not fully convinced I should always choose free speech.

Ultimately, they did move my needle a little bit. I leave this book more fired up about free speech protections than I was when I started. However, I'm not there all the way yet. The authors would probably be disappointed by this, as they seem to paint a picture that it's all or nothing. I simply don't think they convinced me of that.

I think of a chapter of the college republicans wants to bring Betsy DeVos or Jeff Sessions to campus, I might have initially thought students were right to advocate for the event to be canceled, given everything that folks who worked in the Trump administration represent. I am now convinced that such events really should be protected. At the same time, those kids who sang that horribly awful song on that bus should absolutely be expelled, and their fraternity should absolutely be shut down, first amendment rights be darned. Further, I simply don't buy it that a professor can write racist things on Facebook, or wear Blackface to a Halloween party, and be fully protected under the First Amendment. They simply failed to illustrate to me why we must accept free speech to that extreme.

Lastly, I'm left a bit frustrated that liberals often have to be the bigger person. Republicans are never held to universal principles - they are constantly hypocrites. For example, they claim to value states' rights when it's used to block abortion on a state-by-state basis, but then when they have a chance to outlaw abortion on a national level, suddenly they don't care about the rights of states who want to protect it. When Obama tried to nominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court eight months before the presidential election, they said the appointment would have been rushed and we needed to hear the opinions of the people. But when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court about a month before the presidential election, her appointment was immediately voted upon. When Dems are in control, our country's debt is a national crisis, but when Republicans are in control, the debt doesn't seem to matter all that much. Republicans are able to pick and choose when to follow certain principles and when they don't want to. You say, "Isn't it unfair to protect speech you like but punish speech you don't like?" Well, maybe so. But why can't we be unfair for once? You say, "Where do you draw the line?" Why can't we draw it wherever we want? Dems buy into arguments like this book too much. We say, "Well I don't like that he's doing all these racist things, but I said I like free speech so I guess I have to allow it." We see it as intellectual and moral purity. But republicans are able to wiggle, maneuver, and justify their way to self-serving cognitive dissonance in ways that social psychologists would call clinical. And because of it, they frequently win. We can bemoan all we want that how republicans handled Garland and Coney Barrett was wrong, but it's Amy Coney Barrett who's on the bench. I don't think dems have to, and I don't think we should, accept the ultimate extremes the authors say we should, even if they did persuade me on many compelling points.

[Jayon Park · Rating 4 out of 5]

College is supposed to be a safe space for (, not from) the exchange of ideas. You're bound to be confronted/ to confront ideas you disagree with, or find egregious. That's the whole point of a university (a place of knowledge). 

The authors' arguments were solid but some of their recommendations left room for interpretations (e.g. "campuses should try to sensitize their communities." What does “should try” entail?). In their argument for "more speech" (which I do agree with), they wrote; "But a willingness of members of the campus community to speak out on behalf of the university's core values, and to condemn speech that is inimical to them, is an important component of how campuses should deal with offensive expression." This is where the emotional labor argument could be made (that it is often on the part of marginalized students to defend themselves rather than allies or good actors chiming in, leading to a difficult/ hostile learning environment) and I wished that the authors covered more ground on that issue. 

All that being said, I have learned a lot from this book despite the difficult nature of the topic (appreciated how well the ideas were structured as it allowed for a easier reading experience). It was a great free read book apart from my regular college assignments. Would recommend

[Mr. Book · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at Mr. Book's Book Reviews.

Mr. Book just finished Free Speech On Campus, by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman.

This book was published in 2017.

This is the ninth book by Chemerinsky that I have read. Six of them got an A+, including his most recent book, No Democracy Lasts Forever, while the other two received A’s. Unfortunately, this one was not up to those standards.

This book discussed many issues of free speech on campus, such as hate speech and punishment of people due to their beliefs. While the book provided a good look at the state of the law and how different principles are in conflict with each other, it wasn’t a very satisfying read. While the authors purport to understand the harm of hate speech, their idea of more speech just the way to combat that has always proven to be a naive approach.

I give this book a B.

Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).

This review has been posted at Mr. Book’s Book Reviews and Goodreads.

Mr. Book finished reading this on December 19, 2024.

[Danielle Routh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a well-researched and quite balanced look at free speech and how it affects campus life for both students and faculty--but of course, the authors are both law professors, so thoroughness follows. I appreciate how they iterate several times that those who call for bans (for lack of a better word) are generally not coming from a place of wanting to be coddled or kept safe but from a place of genuine empathy for those who are threatened and hated. At the same time, they also explain well how "more speech" is a better response to hate speech, because banning speech of any kind, however atrocious, sets a dangerous precedent for dictatorial control over students and also isn't supported under the First Amendment. The authors argue that providing space for competing arguments and worldviews is more effective as the truth will prevail more wholly when students arrive at it themselves instead of being simply told what it is. I do wish the book had given more on-campus examples and perhaps focused on the college aspect of free speech (there was quite a lot of background info), but it's still a great and important read.

[Stephanie Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed that the authors were very thorough in providing and explaining the legal history of free speech in multiple contexts, but I felt that their thesis fell through and was a disappointing conclusion. Ultimately they said that while it's important to emphasize initiatives to make space for and protect historically marginalized peoples, the First Amendment really doesn't provide any guidelines for that, and so legally hate speech cannot and should not be punished if it 'broadens academic discussion and debate.' It was very much a 'we want to do something about it but cannot' type of book, but at the same time, that's exactly what was written and implied from the title and summary so. It's not so much that I'm disappointed in the authors as I am in the technical bindings of the legal system and its definitions.

[Robin]

Still mulling over the scenarios and perspectives presented in this succinct, if repetitive, work. I tend to find Chemerinsky's books on the problems of courts applying originalism more convincing and thoroughly argued than this book on free speech. That said, this book seems like something that both new college students and new faculty should read as they acclimate to campuses.

One matter I wish Chemerinsky had addressed was that campuses pay fees to most guest speakers, sometimes a great deal. Are schools obligated to spend their funds on speakers whose views may make students feel vulnerable and unsafe in order to ensure that the campus provides a well-rounded education that forces students to consider and defend their own perspectives? Is it a disservice to students' education if the school does not pay to have deeply offensive +/ problematic speakers at their institution?

[Bruce Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear, concise, and a pleasure to read. I came away with no idea what types of speech are actually protected, but with a good understanding of why free speech must be protected. Even if said speech is offensive or even hate filled.
Despite the authors' attempts to make short decisive arguments that supported their positions, they frequently contradicted themselves. At first I was of the mind that this was a result of weak scholarship, but as I progressed through the book it was apparent that the real culprit is the tricky subject of protected speech itself and how the definition of protected speech has varied considerably over the past 100 years.
Less than 200 pages of text in easily accessible language, this book is worth your time and attention.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't feel the authors really grappled with the difficult problem of speech that itself silences other speech. They don't wholly ignore that problem, describing the emotional harms of hate speech, for instance. It may be that their conclusion, that more speech is the answer to bad speech, is right, even as to fascistic speech that itself seeks to silence dissent, but I don't think they proved it. That might be, in the end, because the genesis of the book was a course taught in 2015, which may go down in American history as The Last Decent Year. Things have changed a lot since then.

[Patty · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important, timely read, made more relevant to me since I actually work on campus now and my department finds itself at the heart of these matters more and more. Separating "free speech" from "offensive speech" is crucial to open and constructive debate in our very divided country. It's possible to respect a person's right to express their opinions and views, even if they seem hateful, and it's also possible to promote inclusiveness and civility when confronted with its opposite.

[Amie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read a portion of this book for a political science class last semester. I must admit that I am not passionate about the topic, but this book was interesting enough that I bought it to finish reading it. The author is a local professor, and I think his writing approach is professional without being overly technical. I think some of his opinions/interpretations are idealistic (that is, he is expressing how things should be) but campuses aren’t always as supportive of free speech as he paints.

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really learned a lot from this one. I had no idea how the legal system worked and how it is slightly different on university campuses. I feel more informed about the importance of free speech especially when it comes to campuses. The author did a good job of limiting bias, though there were some instances where it felt like they were pushing the reader in one direction. Good book and I would recommend it.

[Harold · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent short book presents a historical outlines the law of free speech and then applies it to colleges. Anyone who is interested in the issue will be more knowledgable and smarter for having read this short book.

[Vana · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book and felt like I was constantly learning. The history of Free Speech on college campuses is very interesting, but the highlights of recent events and how that has played a role was also very refreshing. There were valid points from both sides of the argument as well as the reasoning for where the opinions stem from. If you are wanting to learn about the history of Free Speech in colleges and universities and where it is now and could be going this is a great read.

[Bey · Rating 3 out of 5]

My press law and ethics professor lent me this book to help with my research for my term paper on students' first amendment rights. Very helpful in researching the freedom of speech and the right to protest.

[Marcus Silver · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book to read if you work in higher education/student affairs. You need to be aware of all the voices whether you agree or not. College is a place for students and staff to grow and learn. The students of today are the future leaders of our society.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strong, thoroughly reasoned arguments written clearly and effectively

[Rachel Wexelbaum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Our campus is gripping with this topic and so I recommended that we read this book for a campus book talk.

[Sophie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be a Must Read for all in Senior Year of High School. Makes me want to go back to school and attend all of Erwin Chemerinsky's classes.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoughtful, persuasive, and practical argument for robust freedom of speech on campus.

[Samantha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nice topics covered but just didn't quite meet the mark for me.

[Fiona Brauer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unobjectionable and not very interesting

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required reading for any academic leader.

[Nicholas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise, articulate, and persuasive.