ShareThis Page

Fighting for free speech

| Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
A fire set by demonstrators protesting a scheduled speaking appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos in February burns on Sproul Plaza on the University of California, Berkeley, campus. (AP Photo)
A fire set by demonstrators protesting a scheduled speaking appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos in February burns on Sproul Plaza on the University of California, Berkeley, campus. (AP Photo)

As the academic year gets underway on many campuses, it's a good time to ask: What's the purpose of school? Is it education or indoctrination?

More and more, sadly, it's the latter. We like to think of our universities in picturesque terms — bastions of open learning and scholarly debate where one pursues truth, no matter where the search may lead. Today, this Norman Rockwell vision is sheer fantasy on many campuses.

Those who dare to air a view that flouts the politically correct line on hot-button topics such as race, marriage and immigration are virtually taking their lives into their hands. They aren't met with spirited disagreement. No, they're shouted down. They're threatened. They're attacked by shrieking mobs.

Debate is out. Denigration is in.

It's not just the violent protests that have erupted at, say, the University of California at Berkeley over Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro that should concern us. It's the growing list of speakers who are uninvited. It's the professors who censor themselves to avoid the wrath of the PC thugs.

The problem has grown so bad that last fall, John Ellison, dean of students at the University of Chicago, felt it necessary to write a letter to incoming freshmen putting them on notice that the school was bucking the trend.

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” Ellison wrote.

Imagine — a major university reaffirming a commitment to academic freedom. But that's the state of so-called “higher education” today, when many colleges have become little more than outrageously overpriced day-care centers.

Small wonder that the real travesty is how ill-equipped these students will be to defend their beliefs once they've exited the warm confines of their protective bubbles. They resemble not trained thinkers, but hothouse orchids unable to withstand the cold breeze of opposition.

This represents a complete inversion of the original purpose of a university. The stifling cloud of political correctness that envelops so many schools turns students not into independent, well-trained thinkers, but into sponges who mindlessly absorb whatever propaganda they're fed.

Ultimately, this affects all of us.

“When universities suppress speech, they not only damage freedom today, they establish and push norms harmful to democracy going forward,” writes Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “These restrictions may cause and exacerbate the political polarization that is so widely lamented in our society.”

Hats off, then, to Princeton professor Robbie George and Harvard professor Cornel West, who recently put their differences aside to issue a helpful joint statement. “All of us should seek respectfully to engage with people who challenge our views,” they write. “And we should oppose efforts to silence those with whom we disagree.”

Let's hope more college officials join those who have begun to question the left's death grip on academia — and fight to restore free speech to our nation's campuses.

Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.