Here’s how college presidents can avoid being dragged before Congress this year

But college presidents make their jobs harder when they fail to define their schools’ core missions and educate the students on them freedom of expression and academic freedom rights.

My organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, recently surveyed about 59,000 students and found that 69 percent of them said yelling at a campus speaker was somewhat acceptable, up from 63 percent the previous year. A shocking 32 percent said the same about using violence to stop speech on campus, up from 27 percent.

These disheartening statistics are signs of failed leadership in higher education. Shouting down speakers or using violence to stop them is not an exercise in free speech – it’s mob censorship.

Today’s students cannot become tomorrow’s leaders if they resort to illiberal tactics to shut down speech with which they disagree. Nor can they advance the mission of higher education, which the University of Chicago properly does defines as “the discovery, improvement and dissemination of knowledge”.

Administrators too often fail to teach the importance of free speech and academic freedom to students when they arrive on campus, or issue confusing guidelines that either cripple free speech or invite anarchy.

About a quarter of students say it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus, and 42% say it is only “somewhat” clear. Former presidents of Harvard University, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania have all fallen victim to this lack of clarity and are now out of a job.

This is why colleges should educate students about free speech and academic freedom rights, including their limits, as early as orientation week. Some colleges, such as the University of North Carolina Asheville, have already begun to do so.

It is also essential that the freedom of expression guidelines are consistently applied. No hypocrisy. No double standards.

Students who turn from speech to violence or who use violence to suppress speech must be punished. So are students who shout over loudspeakers or substantially disrupt classes. Behavior that is rewarded is repeated. Colleges must have the highest tolerance for speech and zero tolerance for mob censorship.

And then there are the policies: 85% of colleges maintain speech codes that clearly and substantially limit speech or that are so vague as to invite administrative abuse. They must be removed, including the so-called “biased answer lines” which urges students to anonymously report speech they find offensive.

From there, presidents should commit their institutions to protecting free speech and academic freedom, preferably in a written document that clearly outlines the policy.

The gold standard for such a policy is Chicago Declarationrevealed in 2015 and since then adopted by 110 institutions or faculty bodies. It states, in part, that “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to protect individuals from ideas and opinions that they find unwelcome, distasteful, or even deeply offensive.” This policy must be shared widely and frequently with the campus community. After all, a policy no one knows about is ripe for selective enforcement.

A final way in which presidents can set the right tone is by adopting a policy of institutional neutrality on social and political issues that are not part of the college’s core mission. This removes the expectation that the institution must weigh in whenever a political quagmire presents itself and allows the campus community to drive the debate without administrators putting their thumb on the scales.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Refusing to issue an official position also makes a college president’s job easier—it protects his institution from the charges of hypocrisy that are inevitably raised whenever administrators speak out on some issues but not on others. Johns Hopkins University, Emerson College and the University of Alabama system, all recently adopted policies of institutional neutrality, avoiding the lure of writing no-win statements on controversial current events. Harvard, on the other hand, wrote seven statements after October 7, 2023, failing miserably each time. He learned his lesson and adopted institutional neutrality in May.

As we have learned from the fate of Ivy League presidents over the past year, equivocation about free speech issues will eventually catch up with you. That’s why college presidents should commit to teaching and protecting free speech and embracing institutional neutrality—three direct paths to less tumultuous campuses in 2024 and beyond.

Nico Perrino is executive vice president of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is also the host So to speak: The Free Speech Podcast and the co-director and senior producer of the documentary on freedom of expression Strong Ira.