FREE SPEECH AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM QUESTIONS

I became aware of a situation the other day that, if considered in its basic aspects, reveals an issue that reflects whether the state can authoritatively implement policy which bolsters the good as opposed to the right. In case you have not read recent postings of this blog, I have made the argument that our government, as a matter of course, has become an institution that authoritatively has taken on a posture of neutrality when it comes to moral decisions. In the last posting, I traced the jurisprudence regarding the relationship between religion and government. In that case, the government has definitely taken a neutral role; that is, government does not promote or inhibit religion or the practice thereof. In the situation I recently heard of, we have another aspect of government having to decide whether enforcing or promoting the good or the right should be or must be the role of government.

Again, the good refers to those things, practices, ideas, and ideals that the majority of a jurisdiction believes to be moral. The right is the legal standing that puts a claim on government that states government is prohibited from certain policies. Stated another way, rights refers to the individual being able to do what the person wishes to do.

Well, what of this situation? Suppose there is a college that depends heavily on public funds from the city government in which the college is located in order to survive. The college's department of political science has invited two speakers, who in their public writings, have advocated a policy that if implemented would seriously threaten certain interests to which many in that city's population feel a close affinity. So concerned is this population that upon hearing of the upcoming presentation, many in the city applied pressure to willing members of the city council to threaten the college with a withdrawal of funding if the speakers were allowed to make their presentation.

The good in this scenario is what the majority or the majority's representatives believe should happen. That is, the speakers should be barred. The right refers to the college's choice to invite the speakers to say what they want to say. In short, the right is on the side of the speakers giving their presentation. The federalist position is bifurcated. On the one hand, it supports the legality of the local city government to do what it threatens to do – that the city should be able to spend its collected tax dollars as it sees fit. But on the other hand, it also asserts that the integrity of the individual, an entity within a federated community of the city or of the nation, would be violated on two counts. If the city council in effect cuts the funding or is successful in convincing the college to cancel the presentation, one, the rights of the speakers to speak freely and, two, the right of the student to go to an educational institution that enjoys academic freedom would be violated.

While different federalists or, for that matter, differing citizens might support either one side or the other in terms of this question, the case brings to bear this notion of the right and the good being at odds. Let me suppose that you don't know what the substantive issue was in this situation. I would guess that you might favor the rights of the college to present the speakers. Would it affect your opinion to know that the speakers are advocating a single state solution to the area that encompasses Israel and Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) and that such a solution will, in effect, bring the Jewish state of Israel to an end? Does that affect your opinion on how this controversy should be decided? Polling tells us that Americans' support for Israel's military actions against Palestinians hovers around sixty percent.¹ So, perhaps you might side with the council members; perhaps not. But I think you can see how in this case many would agree with the idea that local government should use its authority to promote this good.

I think this case might be very useful in many civics classrooms, particularly if the student population of a school has a history of expressing opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would present the issue as I have in this posting. I would first have students take a position on the issue of free speech and academic freedom without knowing what the substantive topic was. Then I would let the students know what that issue was. If students are pro-Israel and decide to take a pro-right position before knowing what the speakers advocate, knowledge of the speakers' topic might cause significant dissonance and motivate students to give the issue serious consideration.

For the record, I will express my opinion. I think the city council has every right and perhaps even the responsibility to voice its concern. The majority has the right to express its beliefs of the good. It should also have the right to decide how it, as a collective, will spend its money. But it is anti-federalist to block speech and academic freedom. It would be imprudent to let the majority satisfy its immediate, knee jerk reaction in such a way as to undermine its longer term goals of equality and liberty.

To give you the rest of the story, the controversy ended when the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, decided to remove any consideration of cutting funding to Brooklyn College. The speakers spoke and Israel still stands.

1See Politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84036.html .