I have to say up front that I'm a fan of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Somewhere in a drawer I still have a t-shirt I got when I attended one of their events years ago. In the time since I've generally agreed with their takes on most issues related to free speech.

So, for instance, I agreed with them last December when they argued that even chanting something like "from the river to the sea" should not be banned on campus. Because while it's definitely offensive (and meant to be), I don't want to get into a habit of banning the left's "hate speech" because I think that's a distinction college administrators should not be making. Once you concede that some speech needs to be banned, you can guarantee the left will happily take up the crusade to ban a lot of speech they don't like.

All of that to say, I generally agree with Greg Lukianoff, the president and C.E.O. of the group and was interested in what he would have to say about the current round of campus disruptions in an interview published today by the NY Times. Unfortunately, the interview seems to have left out some rather important points though, to be fair, I'm not sure that can be blamed on Lukianoff.

Coaston: How did Oct. 7 and Israel’s war in Gaza and the activism that followed changed people’s views on the First Amendment and how people think about it?

Lukianoff: Last fall was a time where — I don’t want to say just conservatives, because I think there were a lot of people from different points in the spectrum who were kind of horrified in some cases, for example, by the students who I believe actually on Oct. 7, or at least on Oct. 8, were holding Israel entirely responsible for these attacks. That was something that people who would think of themselves even on the left found pretty galling, but it did lead to a lot of cancel culture. It did lead to a lot of attempts to get people out of jobs. And it led to people who normally were very critical of cancel culture in some cases, to sort of make an exception for people who were very pro-Palestine.

Cancel culture comes from both the right and the left. For some people, post-Oct. 7 made them fans of cancel culture when it worked to their advantage. It was a sort of clarifying moment for the people who support free speech even in the situations where in some cases you might consider the speech highly unsympathetic...

Coaston: What do you think conservatives get right about campuses right now?

Lukianoff: I came to FIRE in 2001, somewhat hard to convince that the problem of viewpoint diversity was all that big of a deal. Like, “So what? Professors lean somewhat more to the left.” I thought the numbers were something like two to one or maybe even three to one in terms of left-leaning professors versus conservative. As I started to learn more about the actual data, I got a lot more concerned about it because when you have an environment that doesn’t have people who really fundamentally disagree with each other and you have an environment that practically excludes from certain departments people who represent maybe half of the voting population of the United States, you shouldn’t be surprised that group polarization effects take over.

I agree with all of that and the interview wraps up with Lukianoff saying he saw 10/7 as a time to return to first principles of free speech.

In our society, under the First Amendment, one of our bedrock principles, according to Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 case, is that you can’t ban speech simply because it’s offensive. That is a wonderful, sensible rule for a genuinely multicultural and diverse society , because people in different economic classes, people from different regions, people from different groups, people from different states, people from different countries, all have very different ideas of what is offensive.

So far as this goes I think it's all good. Lukianoff is correct that we should not be arresting students, suspending them or expelling them for chanting offensive slogans on campus. He's also correct (mentioned elsewhere in the interview) that there can be specific instances where such chanting becomes harassment and does violate the rights of others. What bothers me about this interview isn't what he says but what he doesn't say. And again, I'm not sure who is to blame for that since he wasn't choosing his own questions.

The problems we've seen on campus over the past couple weeks are not about fundamental issues of free speech, they are about student attempts to occupy parts of campus and effectively exclude others (particularly Jewish students) from using that space. Here's a case in point which I noticed over the weekend. A Jewish student at UPenn named Eyal Yakoby tried walking in the vicinity of the Penn student encampment and was harassed and threatened by guys in masks.

Want to see how “peaceful” protests are @penn? Watch as the campers harass a student simply walking on his own campus.

Threats and flashing strobe lights were not included in the Penn Welcome Pamphlet.

The bravery of this student should be applauded. pic.twitter.com/3Fj6RbKn4W

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) May 3, 2024

Students at other campuses (PSU and Columbia) have taken over entire buildings and heavily damaged and vandalized their interiors. We're way past the point of simply removing protests because they are rude and offensive. Campuses are dealing with occupations which violate the usual rules, rules which say that time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on protests so long as those restrictions are content neutral. In other words, so long as these aren't new rules invented just for these protests, the restrictions to not violate free speech. Vandalism and breaking and entering are illegal acts which are not protected by appeals to free speech. The fact that none of this was mentioned in the interview didn't escape the notice of readers. Here is the top comment:

Free speech, protest and activism are allowed and even encouraged, but within limits which do not include:

- violence toward others.

- occupation of buildings.

- destruction of property.

- trespass.

- disruption of classes and campus functioning.

If such limits and laws are violated college leaders have no reasonable alternative other than to call in the police or other authorities.

You don't have to be a psychologist to understand the concept of positive reinforcement:  If college administrations accede to protesters' actions that violate laws and college rules, protesters will predictably continue to exhibit such behavior.

Another solid comment.

Two observations.  First, there's constitutional free speech, and there's the concept of free speech.  The latter applies on private college campuses; administrators can impose restrictions all they want, but as institutions of higher learning, they choose not to as a matter of principle.  Second, free speech protections, whether in law or campus rules, do not grant an exemption from reasonable time and place restrictions, uniformly applied.  So if students occupy a campus building and disrupt classes; if students vandalize buildings; if students ignore curfews, they are not protected by free speech.  Some might argue that civil disobedience is itself of form of free expression, and they would be correct.  But it means that they accept the consequences.  Otherwise, it's just mob rule, which is a destroyer of free speech.

Students are not being arrested and suspended because they said bad or hateful words on campus. I would be against that. They are being arrested and suspended because they have in some cases broken the law and in other cases violated campus restrictions of the time, place and manner of protests. Those rules were designed to ensure that everyone on campus can move freely, study and finish their exams. At this point, failing to focus on any of that context seems like a mistake or at least a missed opportunity.