Colleges still privileging identity politics over free speech

Colleges still privileging identity politics over free speech

"Identity politics," in which people are viewed not as individuals but as members of a racial, ethnic or sexual group, is being used by leftist faculties and administrators to eliminate free speech at America's colleges and universities.

IMAGE: Sam Graham/Flickr Found at

WASHINGTON, March 9, 2016 — American colleges and universities are eager to embrace differences in race, ethnic background, religion, and sexual orientation, as they should. But for them, that’s where diversity ends. When it comes to the free expression of ideas, they think diversity is a dirty word.

Universities used to believe, as Voltaire did, that even the most offensive ideas deserve a hearing. Now, if ideas are unpopular, they are unwelcome.

Students at Williams College recently invited John Derbyshire—a controversial journalist who opposes immigration and has been charged with nativism—to speak. The college president, Adam Falk, disinvited him.

Political correctness threatens Free Speech in America

In October, Falk wrote for the student newspaper: “Whatever our own views may be, we should be active in bringing to campus speakers whose opinions are different from our own.” That was before he heard about Derbyshire.

Now he says on the college website: “We have said that we wouldn’t cancel speakers or prevent the expression of views except in the most extreme circumstances, but there’s a line somewhere and Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it.”

At Virginia Tech, a conservative student group, Young Americans for Freedom, hosted a standing-room-only event on immigration reform with Bay Buchanan, former treasurer of the United States, as speaker. The event was promoted with a flyer headlined provocatively. “Alien Invasion: How Illegal Immigration Is Hurting America.”

The school’s student budget board voted to defund the conservative student group. Their reason? “The combination of language and imagery is offensive, insensitive and a blatant act of disrespect toward the immigrant community and the Virginia Tech community at large.”

Buchanan declared, “It is an outrageous effort on the part of these students to control speech, to determine what is said and how it’s said.”

After a long battle, Virginia Tech finally restored funding to Young Americans for Freedom.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was scheduled to appear at California State University in Los Angeles on Feb. 25 to deliver a talk called, “When Diversity Becomes A Problem.” University President William Covino canceled the event. Shapiro vowed to come anyway. Covino reversed the cancellation, and Shapiro appeared, but those on campus who have contempt for free speech did their best to prevent the talk from proceeding.

Natalie Johnson, reporting for, wrote: “Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building … to block other students from attending the event. Many in the dense crowd of protestors shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors. Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event … said they were forced to sneak groups of four or five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protestors who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.”

Professor Alan Charles Kors of the University of Pennsylvania, said, “What universities mean by diversity and multiculturalism, above all else, is simply ‘not white,’ although ‘not male’ and ‘not heterosexual’ are not all that far behind.

It’s time for a national dialogue on White privilege and Black responsibility


“They speak of ‘white’ and ‘white privilege’ as a single cultural phenomenon, linking those look-alike, think-alike Finns and Sicilians, French atheists and Eastern Orthodox Slavs, North Dakotans and New Yorkers into one identity. They believe that this is a deep analysis. They now must deal with the rage and often pained (and painful) silliness of those ‘excluded’ students who believe them.”

In Kors’ view, “Morally, our campuses have denied the only authentic meaning of liberation: the freedom to individuate, by one’s own lights, free of external coercions and impositions. It is the right of all free men and women to decide for themselves the meaning and importance, or relative unimportance, of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexuality. No one has the moral right to decide that for you, and to assign to you official voices, denying the individuality that lies at the heart of human dignity …

“The suppression of speech, expression, opinion and satire forms a barrier to that freedom in which an education worthy of free men and women can occur: debate; disagreement; speaking about what others would deem unthinkable; the right to heterodoxy and eccentricity and passions. It denies the indispensability of freedom to learning; the dignity and strength of meeting speech that one abhors with further speech, with reason, with evidence, with cold contempt, or with moral outrage and moral witness.”

Today’s college students seem not to value free speech. Perhaps part of the reason is that they have been taught so little about the history of our country and the central role the First Amendment and free speech have played in our history. Only 18 percent of the more than 1,100 colleges and universities in the What Will They Learn? study require a course in American history or government.

In the other 82 per cent of schools, students can graduate with no more knowledge of America than when they entered.

Old, white privilege

A 2012 survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that less than 20 percent of American college graduates know the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation. A 2014 survey found that more than a quarter of college graduates don’t know that Franklin Roosevelt was president during World War II, and one third don’t know he was the president who spearheaded the New Deal. Worse, those questions were multiple choice.

Particularly troubling was another 2014 survey, this one conducted by the Newseum Institute. It revealed that almost 40 percent of Americans say the First Amendment goes “too far.”

On our campuses it is not only those with “extreme” views who are prevented from speaking. In one typical case in 2013, Robert Zoellick, an alumnus of Swarthmore College and former president of the World Bank, accepted and then turned down an invitation to speak at Swarthmore’s commencement after students objected to his support for the war in Iraq and his record at the World Bank.

A recent study by the American Association of Colleges and Universities of 24,000 college students and 9,000 faculty and staff members found that only 18.5 percent of the faculty and staff strongly agree that it is “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

Those who believe in free speech are fighting back. A statement has been prepared by University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, which declares in part, “It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable.”

The responsibility of a university, it concludes, is not only to promote “fearless freedom of debate,” but also to protect it.

The University of Chicago statement was built upon its own history, including a controversial invitation by students in 1932 to William Z. Foster, then the Communist Party candidate for president. The proper response to unpopular ideas, responded then-president Robert Maynard Hutchins, “lies through discussion rather than inhibition.”

The Chicago statement has been adopted by Purdue, Princeton, American University, Johns Hopkins, Chapman, Winston-Salem State and the University of Wisconsin system, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights In Education (FIRE), a pro-free speech group which is actively promoting it.

Prof. Kors makes this point:

Students do not choose universities to be their parents or therapists, let alone a political police enforcing partisan whims. Higher education needs individuals for all seasons who bear witness to beliefs antithetical to the new tyrannies … The struggle for freedom at universities is one of the defining struggles of our age. Please join brave students in that struggle … There truly are no sidelines.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

Allan C. Brownfeld
Received B.A. from the College of William and Mary, J.D. from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law of the College of William and Mary, and M.A. from the University of Maryland. Served as a member of the faculties of St. Stephen's Episcopal School, Alexandria, Virginia and the University College of the University of Maryland. The recipient of a Wall Street Journal Foundation Award, he has written for such newspapers as The Houston Press, The Washington Evening Star, The Richmond Times Dispatch, and The Cincinnati Enquirer. His column appeared for many years in Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. His articles have appeared in The Yale Review, The Texas Quarterly, Orbis, Modern Age, The Michigan Quarterly, The Commonweal and The Christian Century. His essays have been reprinted in a number of text books for university courses in Government and Politics. For many years, his column appeared several times a week in papers such as The Washington Times, The Phoenix Gazette and the Orange County Register. He served as a member of the staff of the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, as Assistant to the research director of the House Republican Conference and as a consultant to members of the U.S. Congress and to the Vice President. He is the author of five books and currently serves as Contributing Editor of The St. Croix Review, Associate Editor of The Lincoln Review and editor of Issues.