Protesting world injustice has been a rite of passage for generations of American youth, backed by strong laws protecting free speech and freedom of assembly. But students and other protesters who disrupted college campuses this spring are being taught the wrong lesson. It's great to stand by your beliefs, but there's no guarantee that doing so won't have consequences.
The university's primary mission is to create a culture of open inquiry in which both free speech and academic freedom are held up as ideals. Protests are part of that culture, and the issue at the heart of many current demonstrations, namely US involvement in the Israel-Hamas conflict, should be regularly and vigorously debated on college campuses. be.
The constitutional right to free speech protects us from government interference that restricts speech. Leaders of public universities that receive government funding therefore have an increased obligation to respect these boundaries. Private institutions do not have similar legal obligations, but this does not relieve them of their responsibility to encourage as open dialogue as possible on their campuses at all times. It is essential to the pursuit of learning.
But in the real world, this can be tricky and requires nuance when free speech is in tension with academic freedom protections. Universities that were among the first to adopt the principle of academic freedom did so to prevent interference and influence from totalitarian states and religious fervor. Currently, the American Association of University Professors defines this as a “higher education teacher or researcher who investigates and discusses issues in his or her academic field, without interference from politicians or boards of governors, and who teaches or publishes the results.” It is defined as the freedom to do something. , donors or other parties. ”
Student codes of conduct and other guidelines are intended to alleviate some of the tension between free speech and academic freedom, and to ensure that schools comply with government regulations and laws. Every campus has them. But rules are only meaningful if guardrails are consistently followed. Where too many university leadership falls short is in its execution.
Of course, the purpose of protests is to break such rules and significantly disrupt everyday life in order to garner the world's attention and sympathy. Campuses should be able to tolerate some degree of disruption, which is inherent in any protest. This makes it even more important for school administrators to respond when acceptable speech is violated.
In the current demonstrations, a lack of accountability is contributing to the crisis.
As a result, some Jewish students feel they are being systematically harassed. Many students were deprived of access to parts of campus life. On campuses where in-person classes and commencement exercises have been canceled, students have seen their fundamental expectations for the college experience disappear. And in some cases, protesters themselves are at direct risk. The chaos and violence in recent weeks has escalated with the continued involvement of both police and outside agitators.
Amid the protests, there has been much discussion about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and when they cross the line into hate speech. There are significant risks in imposing an overly expansive definition of inappropriate speech, and universities have been rightly reprimanded for doing so in the past. But it should be easy to agree that students, faculty, administrators, and university employees on campus should not be intimidated or intimidated. School policies should reflect this and, where appropriate, be enforced.
In the long run, a lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of expression and an inability to hold accountable those who break that norm means that the pursuit of higher education is subject to the whims of those motivated by hypocrisy and cynicism. have been exposed to.
For years, right-wing Republicans have found an opportunity to campaign against academic freedom at the federal and state levels, with accusations of anti-Semitism on campus being the latest tool. House Speaker Mike Johnson used this moment of turmoil as cover to launch a legislative effort to crack down on elite universities, and House members recently passed a bill that would impose outrageous government restrictions on free speech. The Senate should unequivocally reject such efforts.
The lack of stable, principled leadership is what opened the gates to such cynicism on campus in the first place. In recent years, many university leaders have failed to act, even as students and faculty have shown ever greater commitment to blocking the spread of views they believe are wrong or beyond common sense. do not have. Some academics report that this has had a chilling effect on their research, reducing their desire to participate in academia and the wider world of public debate. The cost of pushing the boundaries, especially with conservative thinking, is becoming higher and higher.
Schools should teach students that it takes courage to listen as much as to speak. That many of those now demanding the right to protest have previously sought to suppress the speech of those who expressed hatred has not gone unnoticed, not only on campuses but also by legislators and the general public.
Establishing a culture of open and free expression is critical to an institution's mission. This includes clear guardrails for behavior and enforcement of those guardrails, regardless of speaker or topic. Doing so will not only help restore order to today's college campuses, but will also strengthen the cultural foundations of higher education for generations to come.
The Times is committed to publishing Diversity of characters To the editor. Please let us know what you think about this article or article.here are some chip. And our email is: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section. Facebook, Instagram, tick tock, whatsapp, X and thread.
