'Free speech' on college campuses

There may be no greater paradox than the concept of free-speech zones on college campuses. Not because college students aren't sophisticated enough to deal responsibly with their freedom of speech, but because campuses are by definition free-speech zones. Carving out special areas to exercise that right doesn't just undermine the premise; it goes against the purpose of a higher education.
Yet Iowa State University restricts dissenting speech to two places on campus, which are available on a first-come, first-serve basis, to those who first sign up with the school's event management office. Student senators passed up the chance last year to expand the range of speech zone, fearful that students would suffer from exposure to heated and aggressive demonstrations. There are legitimate concerns buried in that rationale. But unless the speech is explicitly hateful or demeaning of a particular group, a university should be promoting healthy exchanges of opinion, not squashing them. At the same time, it should be insisting on respectful and engaging discourse.
A national organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, whose stated mission is upholding free speech and other rights on college and university campuses, is critical of Iowa State and of 49.3 percent of the 440 colleges and universities it looked at for a 2016 report. It cites policies that "seriously infringe upon the free speech rights of students."
The beauty of a college campus is that it's a safe place to explore ideas and points of view you might never have considered, and learn to voice your opinions without fear of persecution-violence, imprisonment or firing, for example. It's also the place to learn to disagree civilly, which is not something enough of us are learning these days.
Sure, universities can face a tough balancing act. Hate speech that gratuitously condemns people for their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, for example, plays no useful purpose and should not be allowed. But what about when a point of view has potential to give offense but is not explicitly intended as offensive speech? You might even hear it in class, from a professor. As an undergraduate, I was shocked and offended to hear one of the most heralded professors of Western civilization lecture that India (my homeland) was a failed civilization incapable of self-governance. But it also awakened me to the cocoon I had grown up in, surrounded by intellectuals with an anti-colonialist outlook. I took his disparagement personally. But I learned to sharpen my own responses.
Still, the boundary lines can get confusing. FIRE goes beyond free-speech zones to slam what it calls "speech codes," which include university policies or regulations prohibiting harassment against people based on their protected class status. The organization gives a code-red rating to universities that have, in its view, at least one policy that substantially restricts freedom of speech. (You can look up reports on individual colleges at: https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/). It cites, among others, the private Grinnell College in Iowa for a policy spelled out in the handbook that students found responsible for bias-related charges may face suspension, dismissal or other penalties. Another policy FIRE holds up for criticism is that the college's web servers cannot be used to annoy, abuse, libel, threaten, or harass anyone, individually or collectively, or to violate state or federal laws.
With that criticism FIRE, in my view, is taking the concept of free speech too far. The organization also faults the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights for pressuring universities into adopting "unconstitutional speech codes under the guise of harassment policies." Sometimes defining harassment is an individual judgment call. But certain restrictions can and should be spelled out in advance.
It's likewise absurd to lump policies designed to lessen sexual assault on campus-such as getting someone's verbal permission before having sex-as a restriction on free speech. Then there are trigger warnings, where professors alert students to upcoming material that could revive traumatic past events. Whatever you think of "trigger warnings," those are not violations of free-speech either; they're speech intended to protect.
But what of a legitimate debate on a policy issue, like abortion? True, it's a visceral subject, but is at the center of so many political debates that we have to be able to discuss it civilly. The University of Iowa went too far in April by washing away hearts drawn in chalk on university sidewalks by abortion opponents. Those students had every right to express their views. And students who support abortion rights have every right to answer them with equal decorum.
What seems to be missing from these arguments about free speech is the need for faculty, advisers or administrators to lay the necessary ground work. It's a college's responsibility to prepare students to interact with people of other backgrounds and perspectives, and to demand respect and consideration when dealing with controversial issues.
At Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, supporters of Donald Trump painted cement blocks with graffiti that said "Build a wall," in reference to Trump's proposal to keep out unauthorized immigrants. That led other students to paint over the blocks with slogans supporting immigrants. Latino students said they felt personally targeted by the graffiti. Conservative students said they didn't feel welcome to express their views. It's no surprise, given the intense political polarization in society, that these divisions would find their way onto a college campus. Was the graffiti intended to advance a political position or just to provoke a particular group? Only the students who wrote it can answer that. But the college should have clearly spelled out, in orientation and other forums, that provocation designed to inflame or alienate a group is not welcome on campus.
It's not enough to say, "We permit free speech. Now have at it!" without helping to facilitate those difficult dialogues. And while colleges don't need to protect students from different perspectives, they need to strengthen their ability to respond to them. Because most often, the best response to speech you find disagreeable is exercising your right to disagree with it.