Three free speech scholars on why universities fail at open debate

Universities fail at open debate mainly because of how they are run, not because of their students. Three guests who disagree on much else give the same account: administrations that have grown faster than the faculty, rules that tell scholars what they must profess, and leaders who give way under pressure. Because the causes are structural, they outlast any one controversy.

Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor since 1984, says it most mildly and from inside. Harvard has given him nothing but support, and his own speech and teaching have not been restricted. Yet he agrees there are dangers to free expression there and elsewhere, and says "There's too much bureaucracy, too much regulation." In the last five years he has joined organizations concerned with academic freedom. His main example is the diversity statement required of applicants and those seeking promotion. He objects on behalf of someone who disagrees, and asks how people would react if applicants had to pledge loyalty to a cause from the other side of politics. He also sees pressure from the opposite direction, calling state laws that ban the teaching of critical race theory a frightening encroachment on freedom.

Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer who co-founded the free speech group FIRE, says it most sharply. Universities have been taken over by administrators who do not share academic values. Of them he says "They feel that their job is to keep order." So they write speech codes and enforce them through unfair hearings. He notes there are more administrators than faculty in American higher education. A university should protect students from physical assault, not from insult, and a real education cannot be comfortable. He would cut most administrators, abolish speech codes and lower tuition.

Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's president, brings the numbers. FIRE counts well over a thousand attempts to get professors punished between 2014 and mid-2023, about two-thirds successful, with roughly 190 firings. In its faculty survey, 90 percent report self-censoring. He describes administrators taking part in shout-downs, and wants each one investigated. About one third of successful campaigns against professors come from the right, and FIRE won a lawsuit against a Florida law restricting topics. These are FIRE's own counts.

They agree that bureaucracy is the root, that required statements are compelled speech, that the threat comes from both political directions, and that understanding beats suppression. They disagree on how bad things are at Harvard, where FIRE's ranking puts it last while Kennedy has never been restrained. They also disagree on affirmative action and on the limits of offensive speech. The failure is not uniform across schools, and none of the three opposes protest or defends threats.

What to do with it: look past the students to the administration. Oppose compelled statements whatever their politics, using the test of whether you would accept the same rule with a pledge you dislike. Use publicity, since embarrassment often makes a university back down. Join academic freedom groups and write in defense of disciplined teachers. Use the governance levers you have. Check where a school stands. Stay curious about views you dislike. Expect leaders to hold firm.