American Spring? Uphold Freedom of Speech on American Campuses

Protect the First Amendment!

Throughout my political career, I have steadfastly defended the First Amendment, particularly the right to free speech. In 2002, I delivered a speech entitled A Prayer for America, where I challenged the rationale of the PATRIOT Act and questioned actions that infringed upon the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches.

My commitment to upholding free speech has been a guiding principle throughout my tenure in public service. While a Member of Congress, I consistently opposed measures that, in my view, threatened civil liberties, including the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which I believed was unconstitutional and could potentially criminalize thought. The bill passed. I was one of 6 members who voted against it.

The Current Assault on Free Speech on Campus

In the past few weeks, federal officials have conducted aggressive attempts to squelch protest and dissent on college campuses, intimidating higher education administrators into adopting standards that inherently violate First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of association. The government prescriptions for campus conduct, if actually implemented, expose the academic institutions to civil lawsuits.

There is an open assault on the First Amendment. College students who have peacefully exercised their constitutional right to freedom of speech and association—by challenging government policies or the policies of a foreign government—have been arrested in droves, suspended, expelled, or even faced deportation.

Much of this government activity claims to target anti-Semitism as a civil rights violation, which, on its face, seems reasonable. However, the way this policy is being applied has significant implications for free speech and so needs to be examined.

The Definition of Anti-Semitism and Its Misuse

In the late 18th century, the term “Semite” described languages relating to Hebrew and Arabic. Linguistically, the Semitic Language Tree includes Jews (speaking Hebrew), Arabs (speaking Arabic), and several other groups.

However, in May 2016, a European Union commmittee redefined “anti-Semitism” to refer exclusively to abhorrent conduct toward Jews. This definition was later updated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and was formalized through Executive Order 13899 by President Trump. The order placed anti-Semitism under the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, classifying it as discriminatory conduct against Jews in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

No reasonable, fair-minded person supports discrimination against Jews or anyone else. Yet, this definition is now being used to suppress legitimate criticism of the Netanyahu government, which has faced condemnation both on American college campuses and within Israel for its deadly actions toward Palestinians.

A paradox emerges: It is deemed anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for killing Arabs, but not anti-Semitic for the Israeli government to kill Palestinians, who are also Semitic. This contradiction, tragically, will likely stir genuine anti-Semitism against Jews in particular.

If criticism of Israel is officially equated with anti-Semitism, then attempts to suppress public outrage over war crimes and genocide can only undermine the moral weight of actual cases of anti-Semitism—such as stereotyping, demonization, harassment, incitement, and discrimination against Jewish people.

The First Amendment and the Historical Fight for Free Speech

I taught a college course years ago on the History of the First Amendment. Given recent actions by government officials, it is timely to revisit this linchpin of our freedoms and the Supreme Court decisions that have expanded its application to college and university campuses.

On December 15, 1791, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Throughout history, the government’s attempts to restrict free speech have ultimately backfired. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) criminalized criticism of the federal government, leading to the defeat of the Federalist Party. The Espionage and Sedition Acts (1917-1918) resulted in the imprisonment of Eugene Debs for speaking against WWI. The Supreme Court upheld these laws in 1919, triggering public outrage and setting the stage for stronger free speech protections in later rulings. Yates v. United States (1957) rejected McCarthy-era suppression of speech, reaffirming the primacy of the First Amendment.

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This decision should be displayed in every college administration office across the country.

Legal precedent has consistently upheld the right to free speech, striking down policies that restrict it. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) protected inflammatory speech unless it incited immediate violence. R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) warned against “viewpoint discrimination.” Doe v. University of Michigan (1989) overturned overly broad university speech codes.

There is no constitutional right to suppress speech simply because it offends, upsets, or makes people uncomfortable. Government actions or university policies that infringe upon these rights have frequently been invalidated.

Student Protests and Free Speech in American History

Student activism has long shaped American democracy. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam antiwar movement exploded on college campuses.

I remember attending massive student rallies at Cleveland State University (CSU). Instead of threatening students with arrest, CSU President Harold Enarson (later President of Ohio State University) created a space for dialogue. He encouraged peaceful protest, transforming CSU into a hotbed of political activity that shaped future leaders.

The 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement, arose after students were arrested for protesting university speech restrictions. This was the spark which lit further campus unrest, over government policies. The Vietnam War protests pressured Lyndon Johnson to decline re-election in 1968. The impact of student activism upon the political system was undeniable.

The Dangers of Suppressing Dissent

Historically, authoritarian regimes have targeted universities and intellectuals to suppress dissent. Nazi Germany dismissed or imprisoned Jewish scholars and critics of the Third Reich. Stalin’s Soviet Union forced universities to align with Marxist ideology, executing dissenters. Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution targeted intellectuals, imprisoning them, or killing the thinkers as a way of restructuring thought to fit that regime’s ideology.

Here, in the United States, we are currently witnessing a government crackdown on free speech, freedom of express and freedom of association. The government, aided by networks of informants, is pressuring universities to investigate and silence students.

The First Amendment as a Shield Against Tyranny

The First Amendment is the foundation of American democracy, enabling open dialogue, dissent, and debate. Supreme Court rulings have reinforced academic freedom: Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), and Healy v. James (1972).

Following 9/11, the Patriot Act expanded government surveillance and curtailed civil liberties. I voted against it because I read it. The Iraq War, based on lies, further demonstrated the dangers of unchecked government power. Any infringement resembling the Patriot Act should be repealed.

The Power and Necessity of Protest

We should view campus protests as a healthy sign in a nation where government surveillance, support for a genocidal war, and media complicity have created an alternate political reality.

As George Orwell wrote in 1984: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

America’s college students are not rejecting the evidence of their eyes and ears. They see at least 46,000 dead Palestinians, most of them women and children. They know their government is complicit and are demanding an end to the atrocities. That does not make them anti-Semitic—it makes them human.

They are part of a long American tradition of challenging war and repression. History shows that when governments which try to suppress legitimate protest only fuel greater resistance.

The persistent suppression of free speech now underway may temporarily undermine democratic institutions, but in the end, a government that attacks the First Amendment will destroy its own legitimacy.

Disobedience to authority is the privilege of youth. When young Americans put their academic careers and freedom on the line for moral principles, they renew our faith in America’s future.