Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Constructive Controversial Conversation:

Dealing with Free Speech on
College Campuses
First Amendment

The rights of a citizen as written

in the United States constitution’s Bill of
Rights guarantee the freedom of
speech. This basic right instructs that
the government may not repress the
written or verbalized beliefs of its
people. The Founding Fathers
understood the importance of individual
expression and the exchange of ideas
in progressing a society and protecting
the civil liberties of every human being. Democratic societies pride themselves in the rights of
citizens to voice dissent against the government and to make efforts to change it. Thus, the first
amendment acts as a safeguard against dictatorship or oppressive rule.

Free speech lays the groundwork for a civic culture of conversation and public discourse.
It has been, to some degree, responsible for the solving of numerous issues since the founding
of the United States. Milestones such as the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the civil
rights movement would not have been possible if citizens could not speak out. On the whole, the
First Amendment represents one of the most influential and valued rights of an American citizen.

Penn State and Free Speech

As a University, Penn State has

been home to many who exercise their
first amendment right to free speech.
The activist attitude of the United
States in the 1960s and 1970s was
mirrored on campus, as students
began to join human rights movements
regarding women and people of color.
One specific incident took place in
1966, when over “2,000 students
assembled on Old Main lawn to fight
the regulation that restricted women
from visiting men's off-campus housing
without registering through the
University” (Postlewaite). With the rise
of the Civil Rights Movement and the
tensions during the Vietnam War, the campus saw protests ever more frequently. Recently, after
the 2016 election, President-Elect Donald Trump was heavily protested on Old Main Lawn by

1
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

over 500 activists pinning the man as “racist, sexist, [and] anti-gay” (Kalmowitz). Even today,
various groups may be found on campus advocating for their beliefs, protesting controversial
issues, or raising awareness for a
cause.

Concerns

As helpful and important as

some protests may be, there is always
the possibility that they will turn violent,
as Penn State has certainly witnessed
in the past. In midst of Vietnam War
activism in 1970, a controversial sit-in
in Old Main got out of hand, leading to
violence, vandalism, and the
subsequent arrests of 29 students
(Postlewaite). More recent examples of
violent protest on campus include riots
of over 2000 students on Old Main
Lawn and in the streets of State
College after the firing of former head
football coach Joe Paterno (“Riots
erupt”). Penn State, however, is no exception; violence has erupted on campuses throughout the
country. In January of 2017, the College Republicans club at University of Washington invited
Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. This far-right speaker incited violence which led to
someone being shot on the campus. The resulting security costs of police after the incident
neared a total of $75,000. A year later, the same club has invited an anti-government group
called Patriot Prayer to campus, despite the group being known for inciting violence at their
rallies (Owen). In August of 2017, University of California at Berkeley fell victim to violence as far
-left anti-fascist protesters clashed with alt-right, white nationalist protesters. Antifa activists,
dressed in black, became violent and pepper sprayed their opponents (Queally).

Previous Restrictions on Free Speech

The potential violence fostered by absolute free speech has raised questions about the
extent of the First Amendment’s coverage. Thus, throughout history, the issue has been
addressed, and free speech was seen as secondary to the security of the nation. Perhaps the
most notable instance was during the Cold War. What became known as the “Red Scare” was a
national fear of global communism. The ordeal even led to the Supreme Court ruling in Dennis v.
United States which stated that “the free-speech rights of accused Communists could be
restricted because their actions presented a clear and present danger to the government”
(History). Other Supreme Court cases have further restricted and clarified the boundaries of Free
Speech to limit the violence and incivility it may entail. Examples include disallowing:

 Incitation of harmful actions (Schenck v. United States)

 Defamation, or knowingly false statements against an individual (New York Times v.

Sullivan)

 Threats of violence (Watts v. United States)

 Certain speech from public officials or students (Pickering v. Board of Education)

(From “What Does” and Stone)

2
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Penn State and Other University Policies on Free Speech

Universities are aware of the problems associated with attempting to balance freedom of
speech with the safety of their students, and many have already begun to act.

Though UC Berkeley protects all forms of speech and expression guaranteed by the
Constitution, university policy states that “The University may impose reasonable limits on the
time, place and manner of speech activities. Conduct that violates University rules ... is not
protected and may subject students to discipline” (University of California). In the midst of violent
protests induced by speakers on campus during the last school year, the University cancelled
Milo Yiannopoulos and conservative commentator Ann Coulter, citing safety concerns.

Penn State University exhibits similar policies to UC Berkeley:

“The expression of diverse views and

opinions is encouraged in the
University community. Further, the
First Amendment of the United States'
Constitution assures the right of free
expression. In a community which
recognizes the rights of its members to
hold divergent views and to express
those views, sometimes ideas are
expressed which are contrary to
University values and objectives.
Nevertheless, the University cannot
impose disciplinary sanctions upon
such expression when it is otherwise in
compliance with University
regulations” (Penn State).

Also similar to UC Berkeley, Penn State cancelled a speech from white nationalist
speaker Richard Spencer at the beginning of the 2017 Fall Semester, with fears that violence
would ensue.

In another attempt to balance free speech and safety, the University of Washington
attempted to charge a campus club, College Republicans, for security when they invited Patriot
Prayer, a group with a record of inciting violence. This was overruled by a federal judge, and the
rally was allowed on the university’s dollar, resulting in riots and five arrests (Papenfuss).

I disagree profoundly with the content that has been

presented publicly about this speaker's views which are
abhorrent and contradictory to our University’s values.
There is no place for hatred, bigotry or racism in our
society and on our campuses"
-Penn State President Eric Barron on Richard Spencer

3
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Desired Outcome

University students envision a campus where their free speech rights and safety may be
balanced in order to stimulate a culture of constructive interaction. Thus, today we will be
deliberating how a public university such as Penn State could address the conflict between these
values, and create a safe environment for constructive conversation.

Approaching the Problem through Deliberation

The deliberation activity will dive into three strategies for approaching the campus free
speech situation. This design is intended to promote constructive and civil discussion. Each
approach is based on different values that various groups in society may hold, and points out the
benefits and trade offs of that particular way of thinking.

Option One suggests providing more educational events and public forums for
townspeople and students to attend in an attempt to decrease the likelihood of violent
action.

Option Two deals with the ability of the University to limit and monitor which
speakers it may allow on campus.

Option Three creates a framework for how, when, and where to allow speakers to
visit, and how to handle security at potentially unsafe events.

Guidelines for Deliberation

Deliberation is designed to be a civil discussion intended for the generation of thoughtful

ideas. As opposed to a debate, the importance of open mindedness and finding common ground
cannot be overstressed. Below is a list of some basic guidelines for discussion to keep the
conversation civil and meaningful:

 Moderators will guide the discussion and remain neutral

 Everyone is encouraged to speak
 No one or two individuals will dominate the conversation
 The conversation will be focused on the choices
 All thoughts and positions will be considered
 All participants will ensure an atmosphere for discussion and analysis
 Participants will listen to each other, and will engage in conversation in a civic manner

4
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Option One - Education

One way to build community awareness on constructive conversation with an open-
minded attitude is through education. More specifically, the diverse setting of a university campus
and college town makes the discussion of controversial topics rather critical. Penn State currently
offers multiple programs focused on raising awareness to the concept that everyone is unique,
holds different values, and should be respected. An on-campus program called World In
Conversation is required for most first year students. This group stated that “our undergraduate
facilitators seek to create conversations that allow every perspective on a topic to be heard,
examined and constructively challenged” (World in Conversation). Educational programs can
create a comprehensive environment where both students and community members recognize the
importance of conversation and various opinions on controversial topics. Furthermore, campus
discussions and forums can be held to discuss controversial topics in a constructive, meaningful
setting. While well intended, these discussions can have varying success. In this approach,
consider how education can help promote positive mindsets for discussion.

Potential Solutions Possible Drawbacks

Hold educational seminars and send out
booklets:
 Invite not only students and faculty, but also
people from the town
 Create discussion-based seminars that could be
held in small groups of 5-10 with monitors to
facilitate the conversation and maintain balance
 Send out print booklets or guides in libraries,
school buildings, or student housing and hang
up posters
Deficiency due to limited participants:
 Forcing students to come to seminars may not
have the intended impacts, or if the seminars
are voluntary, those who are most in need may
not come
 Holding small group discussion may have limited
impacts due to difficulty in reaching the entire
population
 If given booklets, students might not read them
carefully and may just throw them away
 Booklets or guides may be effective for a short
time after being sent out, but eventually people
may forget the information

Establish discussion guidelines in classrooms Deficiency due to undercoverage and difficulties

and student organizations:
 Encourage professors and instructors to
intentionally promote ground rules for respectful,
thoughtful, and engaged conversations
 Request that student organizations hold monthly
meetings to talk about being respectful during a
value-based conversation
 Encourage club-to-club interaction
monitoring:
 Class discussion does not include locals, and it
also may be difficult for some professors to
insert discussion time in their class
 Students organizations may not respond well.
Mandatory meeting for clubs can be hard
enforce
 Club to club interaction may be difficult to
monitor or regulate

Start classes focused on debate skills and
logical thinking, even at young age:
 Offer classes teaching students necessary
debate skills so they are able to eliminate hate
speech and practice using logic to prove their
point of view
 Bring teachers with varied viewpoints into the
classroom to encourage students to develop
critical thinking skills and define their own values
Deficiency due to voluntary choice and cost:
 If classes were offered, not all students would
choose to enroll in these classes
 If these classes were required, it would impact
the scheduling system. Further, they may have
to replace other classes
 Universities may not want to allow teachers to
share controversial viewpoints
 Controversial viewpoints may alienate students
who do not share them

5
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Option Two - Limitation

Across college campuses, discussions have emerged over “who” has the right to speak.
Penn State’s role as a public institution does not allow it to restrict who can come and speak on
campus based on what they have to say. Speakers are allowed to come and argue a side without
identifying the challenges to their argument. Furthermore, some students grow angry when a
speaker with extreme views delivers a controversial message. This has resulted in violent protests
at Middlebury College and UC Berkeley (Simon). These protests prevent important civic
discussion which can allow a university to grow and flourish.

This approach will enact limitations on controversial speakers who wish to speak at Penn
State. Currently, it is not difficult to attain permission to speak on a public campus; evidence can
be seen in the court rulings against Auburn and the University of Florida who attempted to deny
Richard Spencer from speaking (Andrews). If a university can find a way to control who comes to
speak, it will maintain a safer environment.

Potential Solutions Possible Drawbacks

Pass legislation to allow universities to prevent speakers with a history of prompting aggression

 Give the university board power to regulate the  As a public institution, the university is not
speaker allowed to limit free speech.

 Allow the university grounds to cite a speaker as
a danger to the public or a disruption of peace
and prevent them from attending
 University board may be biased against a
speaker and choose to unfairly block them from
speaking
 Legislators may be seen as unpatriotic for their
support

 Security forces will not have to manage protests  Supporters of the speaker may feel that their
because of sudden aggression against a first amendment rights are violated
controversial speaker

Let students create the initiatives

 Board of students and faculty who vote/  A majority of the population could vote against a
determine allowed speakers speaker because of his views, not because of a
potential danger

 Hold a forum where students of differing political  Students may not care enough to participate
opinions can voice their thoughts/feelings on  Possibility of disagreement among groups.
specific speakers coming

 Poll student population on who should be  A lot of work and time would have to be
allowed to speak contributed by university and students

6
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Option Three - Security

It is extremely important that Penn State creates a safe environment for free speech to
flourish. Oftentimes, creating this kind of safe environment involves making difficult decisions. If a
speaker is likely to attract violent crowds, what measures should be taken to ensure safety?
Universities across the country are grappling with these issues every day, trying to balance
security with fairness. For example, the University of Minnesota recently decided to host
conservative speaker Ben Shapiro at a medium sized venue off of the main campus to allow
maximum security at the event (Vazner). However, the University quickly faced allegations of
anti-conservative bias, as some accused the University of trying to diminish the impact of the
event, due to the limited venue size and inconvenient location. UC Berkeley is another school that
has struggled with this issue. While the school has been the subject of criticism for cancelling the
events of speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, they also spent close to 4 million
dollars in just one month last year providing security for speakers’ events (Gecker). Finding the
right balance between safety and freedom of speech will be crucial in allowing universities to
become havens of thoughtful conversation on societal progress.

Potential Solutions Possible Drawbacks

Choosing where speakers can speak

Public property (sidewalks)  Crowds may become large and unruly, making
 Avoids appearance of University endorsement of violent outbreaks much more likely
speaker  The amount of security and police present would
depend on the size of the gathering

Private property (classrooms, lecture halls)  Could be portrayed as a university endorsement

 Easier for University to control the event and of the speaker
limit violence  Limits the number of potential listeners

Deciding who provides security

Speaker provides security  Speaker may not provide the amount of security
 Cheap for the University the University deems necessary, forcing the
 Could be considered more fair University to provide security anyway

University provides security Private property (classrooms, lecture halls)

 Ensures sufficient security and a safe  Expensive for the University
environment  Increasing security may stop violence, but there
 Speakers do not get fined for exercising their is still the possibility of the discussion becoming
rights uncivil

Limiting who can attend events

Only students and university affiliated people
 Can control type of attendees
 Limits outside hate groups from attending
 Closes off event for people who are interested,
but don’t attend the university
 The entire community is not open to the
conversation and is excluded from a fruitful civil
discussion

Anybody  Opens up possibility of outside agitators

 Allows broad range of attendees from diverse attending
groups  The large crowd size would need to be managed
by increasing security

7
Constructive Controversial Conversation February 21, 2018

Conclusion
Too often controversy erupts into violence. As a society, we need to find a way to peacefully
engage in conversation with those of differing perspectives in order to form more balanced ideals and
create a more welcoming and inclusive community. It is only fair to our adversaries that we respect
their ideologies. In this deliberation, three different ways of approaching a balance of free speech and
security were established - creating education and opportunities for controversial discussion, putting
limitations on incoming speakers, and ultimately providing a secure environment for the conversation.
People need to become educated and familiar with ways to participate in effective, argumentative
conversation. There needs to be a distinct set of rules and regulations regarding speakers on campus
put in place to let students, speakers, and communities know what to expect and understand how
possible dangerous situations will be handled. The aspect of security and who the individuals are that
need to provide security also needs to be addressed. These three main facets of the issue must be
confronted in order for peaceful, disputatious conversations to become a common occurrence.

Works Cited:
Andrews, Travis M. “Federal judge stops Auburn from canceling white nationalist Richard Spencer speech. Protests and a
scuffle greet him.” The Washington Post, 19 April, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/
wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/?
utm_term=.aa043a7d2459
Gecker, Jocelyn. “UC Berkeley spent $4 million for free speech event security.” Fox News, FOX News Network,
www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/05/uc-berkeley-spent-4-million-for-free-speech-event-security.html.
History.com Staff. “Red Scare.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2010, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare.
Ojalvo, Holly Epstein. “Do Controversial Figures Have a Right to Speak at Public Universities?” USA Today, Gannett
Satellite Information Network, 21 Apr. 2017, college.usatoday.com/2017/04/20/do-controversial-figures-have-a-right-
to-speak-at-public-universities/.
Owen, Tess. “University of Washington Forced to Foot the Bill for Far-Right Rally.” VICE News, 9 Feb. 2018,
www.news.vice.com/en_us/article/a34eep/university-of-washington-forced-to-foot-the-bill-for-far-right-rally
Papenfuss, Mary. “Police Move In As Clashes Erupt At Right-Wing Rally At University Of Washington.” The Huffington
Post, 11 Feb. 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-arrested-at-right-wing-seattle-
rally_us_5a7fbb5ce4b0c6726e141d0c.
“Penn State Policies.” Statement on Intolerance, 11 July 2011, policy.psu.edu/policies/ad29#D.
Postlewaite, Lydia R. “A History of Student Activism: Penn State through the Years.” The Daily Collegian, 23 Aug. 1997,
www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_ffb042c3-c557-515a-8dec-88004ef72ec9.html
Queally, James, et al. “Violence by Far-Left Protesters in Berkeley Sparks Alarm.” LA Times, 28 Aug. 2017,
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-protests-20170827-story.html.
Ragsdale, Todd. “Penn State’s Monster.” Winneteka Heights. Biblegateway.com, Nov. 14, 2011. http://winnetka-
heights.com/?p=825
“Richard Spencer Is Not Welcome to Speak at Penn State.” Penn State University, 22 Aug. 2017, news.psu.edu/
story/478590/2017/08/22/administration/richard-spencer-not-welcome-speak-penn-state.
“Riots Erupt at Penn State After Legendary Coach Paterno Fired.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 10 Nov. 2011,
www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/10/penn-state-students-flood-streets-after-firing-paterno.Html.
Simon, Caroline. “Free Speech Isn’t Free: It’s Costing College Campuses Millions.” Forbes, 20 Nov. 2017, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/11/20/free-speech-isnt-free-its-costing-college-campuses-millions/2/
#680184741bdf
Stone, Geoffrey R., and Eugene Volokh. “Interactive Constitution: The Meaning of Free Speech.” National Constitution
Center, 13 Aug. 2017, www.constitutioncenter.org/blog/interactive-constitution-the-meaning-of-free-speech.
“University of California, Berkeley Statement on Free Speech.” UC Berkeley: Division of Student Affairs, 26 Apr. 2017,
sa.berkeley.edu/free-speech.
Vezner, Tad. “Conservative students say speaking event at U relegated to remote venue over protest fears.” Twin Cities,
Twin Cities, 6 Feb. 2018, www.twincities.com/2018/02/06/conservative-speaking-event-at-u-niversity-minnesota-
relegated-to-remote-venue-over-protest-fears/.
“What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about
-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does.
World in Conversation. Penn State University, 2017. http://worldinconversation.org/
Yuan, Alex, et al. “Penn State Community Participates in Anti-Trump, #NotMyPresident Protests.” The Daily Collegian, 15
Nov. 2016, www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_d4132a1c-ab6b-11e6-964e-eb23a7ed3cc2.html.