Throughout modern history, colleges have been known for protecting unpopular expression.

This blog uses a photo of President Teddy Roosevelt (above) giving a speech defending Professor John Bassett on the Duke University campus in 1903.

Bassett was in danger of being fired for saying he thought  Booker T. Washington (an African American leader) was the greatest person the South had ever produced except Robert E. Lee.

Racist newspapers and opinion leaders demanded that Bassett be fired outright for expressing an opinion that,  today, would be seen as far too deferential to Gen. Lee.

But the Duke University board refused to fire Bassett, and President Roosevelt took a train south to praise them, saying:

“You stand for Academic Freedom, for the right of private judgment, for a duty more incumbent upon the scholar than upon any other man, to tell the truth as he sees it, to claim for himself and to give to others the largest liberty in seeking after the truth.”

It’s been a long time since any defense of campus speech has been given with such force and clarity.

by Bill Rickards
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

October 7, 2019

Famous New York Yankees coach and manager Yogi Berra once said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” That’s close to how it feels here at FIRE when we hear student newspapers have been stolen from stands on campus.

Take, for example, the most recent case of newspaper theft at Radford University, where about 1,000 copies of Radford’s student newspaper, The Tartan, went missing from newsstands following the publication of controversial articles. This type of press censorship is something FIRE has written about again and again.

— MORE —

ALSO SEE

“How long are we going to wait?” Editor in chief criticizes Radford’s newspaper theft investigation. By the Student Press Law Center,  Feb. 2020.

“The claim that America’s campuses are in the midst of a free speech crisis has been made so often and so emphatically that it has widely become accepted as fact. According to the prevailing narrative, liberal professors and students have turned institutions of higher learning into elitist enclaves, where any thought that does not conform to leftist orthodoxy is aggressively suppressed… (but this is) as untrue today as it was in the 1970s,” writes Mary Anne Franks in the Dec. 30, 2019 edition of the Virginia Law Review.

“The assertion that conservative ideas are being violently suppressed on college campuses is as untrue today as it was in the 1970s. While there have been a handful of violent incidents involving conservative speakers, the vast majority of universities have experienced no such controversies. The attempts at ideological suppression that do occur on campuses are far more likely to target leftist views than right-wing views…”

In Reed v Town of Gilbert,  Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), the Supreme Court held that a town’s sign regulations violated the First Amendment because they were content based and could not survive “strict scrutiny.”

A ‘content based’ regulation is one that restricts a particular kind of content.  In the town of Gilbert, a regulation strictly limited temporary directional signs for religious events.  In its opinion, the court said:

“Because content-based laws target speech based on its communicative content, they are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. E.g., R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395.

 In contrast, a content-neutral regulation for signs might be one that restricts the size or safety features  of a sign. That kind of regulation only has to survive intermediate scrutiny, which tests whether a law  is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.

Following Reed, it is obvious on the face of it that the  City of Radford’s  Greek Sign Ordinances violates the First Amendment.  Other cases concerning content specific laws, if applied to the city of Radford’s regulation,  would very likely have led to this same conclusion.

Further reading:  

Supreme Court Opinion, Reed v Town of Gilbert, June 18, 2015.

What’s wrong with the Greek Sign Ordinances?   (This site) 

Susan L. Trevarthen * and Adam M. Hapner ** (Summer, 2020). LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: THE TRUE IMPACT OF REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT ON SIGN REGULATION. Stetson Law Review, 49, 509. https://advance-lexis-com.radford.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn:contentItem:6059-M551-DXPM-S018-00000-00&context=1516831.

Bulletin boards have become a battleground at Radford University in Radford, Va., with students claiming university policies restrict their First Amendment rights.

The policy in question requires university approval for any flier students wish to hang on campus bulletin boards. Over the past semester, journalism professor Bill Kovarik has led a small movement called RU Speechless?, which protests this regulation, among other campus “censorship” policies, as prior restraint.

Story Published May 8, 2013 

Students in the First Amendment and Higher Education class are bearing flyers, a hard-hitting message and symbolically wearing red duct tape over their mouths, and have been rallying with faculty and other involved and driven students with the campaign they call “RU Speechless.”

Kentucky has recently been consider a risk for free speech on campus. It has gotten a “yellow” raiting which is one away from a bad rating. The student organizations decided to organize and build a free speecch wall on campus.

Read More at

March 27, 2013

Good news from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Governor Bob McDonnell has signed a new law that champions the American tradition of pluralism by safeguarding the freedom of association of Virginia’s public college and university students. Virginia has only become the 2nd state to pass such a law since the Supreme Court of the United States’ disappointing ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

The new law states:

§ 23-9.2:12. Student organizations; rights and recognition.

To the extent allowed by state and federal law:

1. A religious or political student organization may determine that ordering the organization’s internal affairs, selecting the organization’s leaders and members, defining the organization’s doctrines, and resolving the organization’s disputes are in furtherance of the organization’s religious or political mission and that only persons committed to that mission should conduct such activities; and

2. No public institution of higher education that has granted recognition of and access to any student organization or group shall discriminate against any such student organization or group that exercises its rights pursuant to subdivision 1.

For more on this article, click here.

The Board of Directors of AEJMC declares that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern. The censorship of such speech is detrimental to effective learning and teaching, and it cannot be justified by reference to “pedagogical concerns.”

The full text of the resolution and press release follows:
For Immediate Release
April 2, 2013

Contact:
Dr. Kyu Ho Youm, AEJMC President
(541) 346-2178
youm@uoegon.edu

The Board of Directors of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) recently passed a resolution regarding the 25th Anniversary of the Supreme Court significantly reducing the level of First Amendment protection afforded to students’ journalistic speech in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

In the ruling, the Court’s 5-3 majority concluded that schools could lawfully censor student expressions in non-public forum media for any “legitimate pedagogical purpose,” and that among the recognized lawful purposes was the elimination of speech tending to “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy”.

AEJMC President Kyu Ho Youm of the University of Oregon explains, “Being keenly aware of this year as the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the AEJMC Board of Directors expresses its increasing concern about the negative impact of the case on freedom of the student press. This is all the more so, when the case has been expanded far enough to apply to the college press over the past 16 years. As the leading national organization of postsecondary journalism and mass communication educators, AEJMC wishes to express its strong stand on the unwarranted abuse of Hazelwood as an easy tool of censorship against student journalists on all levels, including that of colleges and universities”.

Resolution:
In recognition of society’s increased reliance on student news-gatherers to fulfill basic community information needs, and the importance of unfiltered information about the performance of educational institutions,

In recognition of the well-documented misapplication of Hazelwood censorship authority to impede the teaching of professional journalistic values and practices, which include the willingness to question the performance of governance institutions,

In recognition that the primary concern of the Supreme Court in Hazelwood was to permit schools to restrict editorial content “unsuitable for immature audiences”, a concern inapplicable at the postsecondary level.

In recognition of the combined 150 years’ experience of states with statutory student free-press guarantees, demonstrating that the Hazelwood level of administrative control is unnecessary for the advancement of legitimate educational objectives,

Be it resolved that:
The Board of Directors of AEJMC declares that no legitimate pedagogical purpose is served by the censorship of student journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or voices opinions challenging to majority views on matters of public concern. The censorship of such speech is detrimental to effective learning and teaching, and it cannot be justified by reference to “pedagogical concerns.”

Be it further resolved that:
The AEJMC Board of Directors declares that the Hazelwood level of control over student journalistic and editorial expression is incompatible with the effective teaching of journalistic skills, values and practices at the collegiate level, and that institutions of postsecondary education should forswear reliance on Hazelwood as a legitimate source of authority for the governance of student and educator expression.