The whole Ward Churchill affair disturbs me. Hamilton College should never have invited an absolute lunatic such as Churchill to address its students, just as a few months back it should never have invited a convicted terrorist to teach its students. In both cases, public outrage overturned Hamilton's indefensible initial decision.

I'm also disturbed that threats of violence have ostensibly forced the cancellation of Churchill's remarks. Everyone believes in free speech when it protects speech they agree with. But truly believing in free speech means protecting the speech of those we disagree with. I really can't think of anyone I disagree with more than Churchill, but as the overused Voltaire line goes: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Well, maybe not to the death, but you get the point.

Conservatives unpersuaded by the principled defense of free speech might find the utilitarian benefits of tolerating unsettling words more persuasive. Tonight, I speak at the University of Vermont, a left-wing university in America's most liberal state. In that cloistered environment, my views are likely to strike some of the local extremists as foreign as Ward Churchill's strike the rest of us. Will they, too, employ the heckler's veto to shut me up?

It's happened before. At Berkeley, a protestor attempted to rip my microphone's cord from its socket while a mob shouted me down. They even stole my writings and held a Nazi-style book-burning. Austin College wouldn't allow me on campus. A Michigan State hack threatened me with arrest if I dared take the podium. At Connecticut College, a horde of spoiled rich kids screamed over my talk, with one mohawked faux-radical standing in front of the lectern for close to an hour. You see, if outrage is allowed to become a respectable basis for silencing viewpoints, it's not the viewpoints of people like Ward Churchill who will suffer most on campus.

Why is it that the public generally does not understand the concept of "free speech"? It really is not that difficult. As a public service deed, I will explain to you what free speech means and will underline your misconceptions.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Courts have interpreted that phrase to mean that governmental actors may not deny citizens the right to have their say in areas where other citizens can have a say. In other words, if the City of Boston allows Catholics to pass out religious pamphlets at Boston Common, it also has to allow Unitarians to pass out religious pamphlets at Boston Common. There are exceptions to this general rule--the government could deny a religious group the right to speak at Boston Common for public safety reasons. If the group called for the violent overthrow of the government, or was stirring the passions of people at the Common in some other way, governmental actors (namely, the police) could remove the speakers in order to prevent violence.

But on to "free speech" on private college campuses. No such thing exists. Hamilton College is not a governmental actor--it is a private college--and it has the right to hire or fire any professors it wants. Moreover, it can invite or decline to invite speakers. This is not a free speech issue for the speakers. It is a free speech issue for Hamilton College. The government cannot make Hamilton College invite speakers that Hamilton College does not want to invite (although many believe that the Solomon Amendment has this effect with respect to military recruiters).

Students are not governmental actors. They can shout down speakers that they find repugnant without violating anyone's "right to free speech." In fact, they are exercising their right to free speech by yelling at a speaker whose ideas they disagree with. Burning your books is the same thing. Students are exercising their free speech rights by burning your books. It would only be a free speech issue with regards to you if it were the government burning your books.

On to a different point. It's very funny that conservatives complain about the treatment they receive on college campuses. They seem to go in spoiling for a fight. Calling the University of Vermont "a cloistered environment" is not exactly complimentary. Stating that all students at Connecticut College are "spoiled rich kids" is downright rude. Why bother speaking on college campuses if one hates college students? Is it just to rile people up? If the point is to rile up students and get them inflamed, then a state university--like Michigan State--has every right to remove you from the platform in order to prevent you from getting hurt. Your "free speech" argument goes right out the window, even at a public forum, if you are only speaking in order to knowingly offend people in the audience. And it seems like that is what you are doing. Going to Vermont and telling the audience that they hate America is inflammatory. You have absolutely no free speech grounds for complaining when the students boo you or tell you to go to Hell.

While I do wholeheartedly support everyone's right to free speech, everyone needs to realize that exercising this is not to be done without the possibility of consequences. I am not saying criminal charges nor violence is acceptable - but in extreme cases (such as basically saying that 3000 innocent citizens of the US deserved to die horribly) an employer is free to fire an employee, customers are free to move their business elsewhere, etc.

Good Luck with your speaking engagement!

/TJ

I agree with Reader. While someone has the right to say whatever he wants (so long as it is not libelous or does not incite a riot) I have certain rights to. I have the right to (a) vocally disagree with the original speaker's statements or (b) ignore him. If I do either, I am not infringing on the speaker's rights; I am using my rights to disagree.

I do disagree with Reader's statements on book burning... but this is merely a nitpick. Students do not have the right to physically burn books if doing so causes public safety problems... i.e., the fire risks injuring/killing people or damaging property other than the books. However, if students want to publically destroy the books by other means (ripping up pages, for example), they have that right.

I acknowledge my typo... I should've written "...I have certain rights, too" and not "... i have certain rights to."

Reader, I never once mentioned the First Amendment in my post. You're battling a strawman.

You write: "'free speech' on private college campuses. No such thing exists." Then a few lines later, you write: "Students are exercising their free speech rights by burning your books." This is Orwellian. Free speech for book burners but not for invited speakers?

Not everything legal is right. Government shouldn't compel private universities to value free speech, but neither should the public hold any respect for a university as a university when it bars unpopular political speech.

I find Reader's comments useful to clear the haze arising when free speech is mentioned.

However, Reader shows little concern for free speech. Mr. Flynn did not describe "all students at Connecticut College" as spoiled rich kids. Only the rude children who screamed at him. This dishonest slip gives away Reader's game as Mr. Flynn's idealogical opponent. Reader retionalizes why it is perfectly acceptable to bar free speech on campus. Reader is clearly satisfied with conservative speech being stifled on campus - precisely the place where speech should enjoy the most freedom.

Paul: I do not believe that anyone's life was put in danger by the Berkeley book burnings. Do you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Dan Flynn: You used the phrase "free speech." Where do you think that phrase came from? Thin air? No. It's a First Amendment phrase. When you write about "free speech," you are invoking the First Amendment.

You accuse me of being Orwellian. I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. "Free speech" is a right an individual has in relation to the government--not in relation to other people. If the government denies you the right to speak, you have a free speech complaint. If a group of "spoiled rich kids" deny you the right to speak, you have no free speech complaint. Comprende?

I agree with some of your final point. In particular, I agree that the law isn't everything. Speaking personally, I follow ethical and social norms that are not compelled by law. I'm sure you do also. My own norms dictate that I would not interrupt a speaker who I thought was trying to make a good-faith point at a university I attend. That's just how I operate. You seem to operate the same way. So I agree with you at a personal level.

But I don't agree that everyone should operate the same way we do. If a klansman or black panther wanted to speak on campus, I see nothing wrong with students protesting. I also see nothing wrong with universities barring such actors from campus. The problem with extremists is that they excite passions which could lead to violence. The first mission for any university should be protecting the safety and welfare of the students. If a speaker is so controversial and inflammatory that student lives are put in danger, then, of course, the university should deny that actor a stage in which to speak in front of students.

Universities also have other issues to contend with. They want to stay friendly with alums of the school, so as to receive donations and increase the school endowment. Divisive speakers can lead alums to refuse to donate money. Imagine that you are a 70-year-old investment banker liberal (maybe hard to imagine, but bear with me). You give $2 million to UVM every year. You read that someone is coming to campus who claims that "the Left Hates America" and that intelligent liberals are "Intellectual Morons." You may reconsider your donation to the school if you think the school is supporting people who attack you. To protect the endowment, I think it is actually extremely rational for universities to ban speakers who have a controversial message. I'm not saying I agree with it--just that it can be rational from their perspective. Of course, this point is neither liberal nor conservative, because it applies as much to extremists like Ward Connerly as it might to his counterparts on the right.

Bernie: I'm actually pretty indifferent to speech on campuses. I'm on a campus now, but, truth be told, I don't care too much who comes to speak here. I'd rather read a book than hear someone talk about the book. If there is a Supreme Court justice on campus, I might consider attending that lecture, otherwise I would not bother. At a personal level, I think that colleges should try to bring in as many provocative speakers as possible--from both the left and the right. I just don't think that a speaker has grounds for complaint if the university or student body doesn't want him/her there, or if the university decides that safety considerations are so compelling as to decide that the speaker should be removed from the stage. That's not a free speech issue--it's a safety issue.

"Reader" should be called "Writer."

Free Speech, in addition to being a legal right against Congress expressed in the first amendment, is also a non-legal cultural practice (tradition) in ours and other societies. In our culture, all hysterical antics, screaming during speeches, and book-burning against people who disagree with you is generally not permitted. This is a tradition done on the general principle of tolerating "free speech."

Reader: Capish?

Short: That is exactly what I railed against in my first post. The public uses the phrase "free speech" in too colloquial a fashion. This has led people to think that their free speech rights are violated when, for example, (a) one of their posts is removed from a web blog; (b) a newspaper won't print their screeds; (c) a private university won't allow them to wear a t-shirt, etc.

In general, I think it is best to use words and phrases precisely. There is not much to be gained--besides confusion--if words and phrases are used casually.

The theory of a few commentators is that the real reason for cancelling Ward Churchill's speech is because some alumni and other big donors threatened to withold donations. I suspect this is the case. Ward Churchill has "resigned" from the chairmanship of the University of Colorado ethnic studies department and he has had his speech cancelled. This is the first time I'm aware of a situation where anti-Americanism has actually cost one of these people something. Admitedly it has not cost him much yet but at least it has cost something. According to one news report, the University of Colorado board of regents is meeting to discuss this matter. I think it is unlikely that he will be fired, but he should be.

Mr. Churchill has the right to free speech. We currently have people paying the ultimate price to protect his right to free speech. He can say whatever he wants and we will continue to defend his right to free speech, however, the Colorado taxpayers should not be expected to pay his salary.

Wealthy donors have a lot of influence over colleges and universities. There is much that happens behind the scenes that you may not read about in newspapers. I've heard that many graduates of the University of Michigan Law School threatened to withhold donations after Michigan hired feminist law professor Catherine McKinnon.

In such cases, there really is no room for anyone to complain about free speech infringements. McKinnon has the free speech right to publish what she wants, the university has the right to hire her or fire her and donors have the right to withhold donations if she remains a professor at the university.

The system arguably works. In the end, though, notice that it is the wealthy donors who run the show...

Short, you hit the nail right on the head! His name should be Writer!

Just a thought - perhaps as regards college students, the real issue isn't just free speech. Many make a fetish of free speech rights while trampling (or expressing horror of) the speech of others. How does this happen? It's largely in part to a huge majority of faculty who solicit or accept only one strain of thought from their students. It's also due in part to said faculty behaving in much the same way as the kids.

Is it my legal right to shout someone down? I suppose so. But will I learn anything?

The only time I ever tried to shout down a speaker, a kind bystander took me aside and demonstrated that I was not only rude, but 100% wrong: as is typical in such cases, I was trying to hide my ignorance with volume. Saved me from looking more the fool than usual; also brought me back to Catholicism, though I think he was trying to glean me into one of the house-church outfits.

To sum up - free speech is important but it's not the only important thing. We also need courtesy and reason. We need to be able to calmly hear each other out, and then have the mental chops to discern the truth amid competing points of view. We've been taught to place supreme value on the bare permission to speak, without any mention of the responsibility to hear and choose well.

Reader: I did not say that the Berkeley book burning was endangering lives and property. That was in no way my argument. I said that physically burning books is illegal if it potentially endangers lives and properties.

Nightfly,

You reminded me of a great line by the moody Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. He had a great quip that "people demand freedom of speech to compensate for the freedom of thought which they avoid."

Brian - as usual, someone smarter and pithier has been there before me. (And even that angle has been amply covered by Chesterton!) It is a great line; thanks for the smile.

Here's another recent example of wealthy donors trying to oust faculty members who do not toe the line...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107659937493