Free Speech Under Assault at Tufts University

by Liberty and Power

At the last conference of the American Historical Association, those who successfully opposed our resolution to condemn the use of speech codes to restrict academic freedom, asked for"more examples." Here's another one for them, not that it will change their minds:

Showing profound disregard for free speech and freedom of the press, Tufts University has found a conservative student publication guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment for publishing political satire. Despite explicitly promising to protect controversial and offensive expression in its policies, the Tufts Committee on Student Life decided yesterday to punish the student publication The Primary Source (TPS) for printing two articles that offended African-American and Muslim students on campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has spearheaded the defense of TPS, is now launching a public campaign to oppose Tufts’ outrageous actions.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David T. Beito - 5/31/2007

In answer to your question, yes I do think such an order would work to the detriment of free speech.

As I said, people who would be bothered by these articles need to more thin skinned about such matters. I remember that faculty members at Minnesota and Wisconsin promoted all sorts of leftist causes on their office doors including from the crazy and thuggish, Maoist, International Committee Against Racism (Progressive Labor Party).

People who disagreed or were offended didn't go to Student Life and complain. I doubt that the thought of doing so ever entered their heads.

Instead, they shrugged it off and went on with their lives. Wouldn't it be better for the cause of vigorous and open debate for the students at Tufts to follow the same example? I think so...considering the alternative of erecting a policing bureucracy to regulate such matters which become ever more intrusive over time.

Mark Brady - 5/24/2007

David, thank you for your response, which I was interested to read. That said, I suggest you haven't really addressed my argument for why the action that the Committee on Student Life took and the recommendation that it made with regard to a student publication distributed on campus was understandable and indeed reasonable. Specifically, I don't think that in this case Tufts compromised its advocacy of academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.

Do you think that if a faculty member had endorsed one or both of the offending articles by placing them on his office door and the Tufts administration ordered him to take them down, this would constitute an infringement of his academic freedom to the detriment of open discussion on campus?

David T. Beito - 5/23/2007

We agree that Tufts, as a private university, has a legal right to impose any policy it wants. At the same time, because Tufts piously prenteds to champion academic freedom and the free flow of ideas, it deserves criticism when it does not live up to its own standard.

I much prefer colleges, like Liberty University, who are up front that they place other values ahead of academic freedom. Tufts is trying to have it both ways and it can't.

We disagree that the sanction imposed at Tufts is reasonable. I don't see why a special rule should be imposed the sole reason that somebody might be offended.

I might, and often do, find much media coverage of issues (such as the war) to be fundamentally hurtful to my peace of mind.....yet it would not be a healthy situation for me or free discourse if I was able to intimidate writers by forcing them to sign everything that offends me.

Ideally, a university is a place where students learn, as you put it, to be thick skinned and tolerant from a legal standpoint on such matters. If they don't learn it there, they may never learn it.

Mark Brady - 5/13/2007

I've now read the two offending articles in The Primary Source and an account of the decision of the Committee on Student Life.

Although I hate much of what is called political correctness, and I think people have become far too thin-skinned over remarks deemed offensive, I am not surprised that students objected to the two articles. The first article (pdf) lampooned the Tufts race-based admissions policy, and even I find it quite offensive to black students. The second article (pdf) invites "peaceful Muslim[s] who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior" to write in and defend five examples of injunctions in the Koran or historical or current Islamic conduct.

It's no wonder that both articles were published anonymously—they're both juvenile, to say the least, and confirm that "conservative" students can be remarkably stupid.

And let's be quite clear exactly what the punishment involved.

"The Committee on Student Life (CSL) today released a decision finding The Primary Source, Tufts' conservative journal, guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment."

"As a result of the verdict, all pieces in the Source must now be attributed to specific authors. The CSL, which is comprised of students and faculty members, also recommended that 'student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning funding and recognition,' according to a copy of the decision that was sent to the Daily."

"In her statement to the Daily, [CSL Faculty Chair Barbara] Grossman emphasized that the decision strikes a balance, because although students will have to place their names with their contributions, specific content is not censored. 'The Primary Source can continue to print what it chooses, but it should not have the shelter of anonymity from which to launch hurtful attacks,' she said."

I have to say that it doesn't seem unreasonable for a private institution, even a private college or university, to require its members to conduct themselves in a civil manner towards other members. Yes, I can certainly imagine students—and the Committee on Student Life—getting into a huff over abrasive articles that I would not find offensive. That said, I fail to see why the action that the CSL took and the recommendation that it made with regard to a student publication distributed on campus was so unreasonable.