In Defense of Excluding Antisocial Student Groups

I pose a simple question: can free and civil discourse survive inclusion of those who would silence that discourse by any means possible—including violent intimidation?

That seems to be a straightforward question deserving of a straight answer: no, civil discourse will not, except under special circumstances, survive when participants seek to undermine or destroy it.

Yet, when that question is applied to academia, it quickly, and very understandably, becomes clouded over with two ideals broadly engrained in the American spirit: our strong, traditional allegiance to free speech and our more recent but passionate desire for inclusion.

But in this proposed scenario, both of those ideals fall short of the mark. There is an even more fundamental principle at stake: the willingness to abide by the social contract by respecting the rights of others. Unfortunately, this simple, stark conclusion is hard to see in the mists of the Ivory Tower.

A recent controversy at Fordham University provides an excellent vantage point from which to examine this question. My friend Jonathan Marks, a professor of political science at Ursinus College, wrote on Minding the Campus that Fordham erred in denying a request by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for official club status. While his critique of Fordham’s rationale for denying that request has considerable merit, the university’s decision was correct.

Marks began his critique by calling to attention the 1995 landmark Supreme Court decision in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. That case concerned a student Christian publication’s request to receive school funding, with the Court finding that the “government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Deciding for the publication, the Court added that “when the government targets not subject matter, but particular views, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.”

Although the University of Virginia is a public school (and is referred to as “the government” in the ruling), Fordham, despite being private, has long chosen to follow the same broad principles of academic freedom and free speech that public institutions do. Most private universities also adhere to those principles of free speech and open inquiry, and therefore can be subject to rulings such as Rosenberger. That means they cannot restrict student activities according to “viewpoint discrimination” (as do the few remaining religious schools that claim a right to promote a specific set of beliefs at the expense of all other perspectives).

Marks properly calls out Fordham for its blatant viewpoint discrimination, referring readers to the school administration’s attempt to justify its move with a claim that SJP’s “sole purpose was advocating political goals of a specific group against a specific country.” Fordham clearly would have been better off if it had simply omitted that rationale from its defense.

But there are other issues than discrimination with bearing on the Fordham case. Its situation is hardly identical to that of the University of Virginia in 1995; the difference is how the two student groups express their views. Whereas the plaintiffs in Rosenberger revealed their opinions by merely publishing them, SJP has a long record of violently disrupting campus activities to achieve its goals. (In this instance, intimidation in various forms may be considered violence. This includes activities such as shouting down speakers, since it physically denies people their right to speak.)

Indeed, there appears to be a clear pattern of activity indicating that SJP is conducting a national campaign to silence and intimidate pro-Israeli student groups through such means as counter-protests, shouting down speakers, walk-outs, demonizing or humiliating chants, and other disruptive tactics.

Marks noted with disapproval SJP’s tendency to perform such antisocial antics. But he rejected Fordham’s argument that the conduct of other SJP chapters throughout the country was sufficient cause to deny its request, instead citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in Healey v. James

Healy concerned a request by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to start a chapter at Central Connecticut State College (CCSC). SDS, as a national organization, had disrupted campuses all across the country, even shutting some down temporarily. That organization clearly did not wish to participate in a civil public discourse; it wanted to end it through intimidation. Given a chance by the university administration to denounce violence as a tactic, the CCSC chapter refused to do so, which, given prior activities by other SDS chapters, suggests an inclination to indeed use violence as a means to its ends. Still, the Court decided in favor of SDS and against the university.

I contend that decision—made in the feverish conclusion to the turbulent 1960s—is wrong and needs to be challenged. While the freedoms of speech and association are extremely desirable pillars of our society, they are not necessarily of such moral weight that they trump all other concerns. As Russell Kirk wrote in 1955, “it is a principle of English and American jurisprudence that we are not compelled to extend freedom to those who would subvert freedom.”

American freedom is the result of a contract in which all parties agree to honor certain rights of others. Academic freedom exists with that spirit in mind, and when an individual or group on campus refuses to honor the spirit of that contract, they should forfeit their right to participate.

Therefore, Fordham was correct to reject SJP, given that there is a clear and demonstrable record that shows SJP, when granted the right of free association on campus, will use that right to deny the equally valid rights of Jewish groups.

Not to do so will have dire consequences, if adopted as a general rule for all academia. Extending broad academic freedom protections to organizations that use violence and intimidation to get their way will sound the death knell of academia as the marketplace of ideas and bring about an academic jungle with brute power as the standard. Dealing with such matters may mean a less-than-perfect conception of free speech in some cases. But free speech, freedom of association, and academic freedom have never been all-or-nothing propositions; everybody can come up with exceptions such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or promoting violent overthrow of the government.

One alternative may be to give groups with antisocial proclivities, such as SJP, official status after a probationary period, during which any intrusion on the rights of others is cause for an end to their inclusion. But that may be merely postponing the inevitable—groups such as SJP and Black Lives Matter exist for political intimidation. Furthermore, it is always politically easier to deny a group initially than to remove it from campus once it has been allowed to establish itself and grow.

Keeping our civilization civilized through limiting the activities of those who would damage it is hard—but unfortunately, sometimes necessary. And it may be that ensuring that young people understand that the social contract is inviolable, no matter how heartfelt their political passions are, is the most important education of all.

  • DrOfnothing

    “Intimidation in various forms may be considered violence.” And here I thought that JMC writers were adamantly against the idea of “microaggressions?” This was a relatively sensible article, right up until the point one realizes that Schalin is directing his criticism solely at groups that align on the left. This is probably the most telling statement, “groups such as SJP and Black Lives Matter exist for political intimidation.” BLM and SJP have very little in common, and neither exists for the purpose of political intimidation. I challenge the author to name one, even one, act of actual physical violence committed by BLM student activists on a university campus (and don’t say Berkeley, since that was not BLM). Quite to the contrary, on more than one occasion, they have been the _target_ of violent attacks.–399392011.html

    It is all well and good to demand that those who discuss politics on college campuses respect the tradition of civil discourse. Much as I loathe Milo Y. for being a vapid, bigoted charlatan, I still think he should have been allowed to deliver what passes for speech in his tiny, atrophied mind. But this has to apply across the spectrum. Schalin says nothing about anti-abortion groups that routinely scream obscenities at students and wave blown-up images of late-term abortions (illegal throughout the US, btw) in their faces. Where is the author’s recognition that this, too, is intimidation? Apparently, in his world, only the left is capable of radicalism and aggression. The right is entirely moderate and would _never_ engage in intimidating tactics such as, for example, threatening press representatives, bullying friendly foreign leaders, demonizing Muslims . . . oh, wait.

    And this brings us to the crux of the issue. The JMC continues to hand-wring and wax hysterical about the alleged “authoritarian left” quashing free speech on campus. All the while, they refuse to confront what is clear to everyone in the free world, namely that the single greatest threat to free speech–and, indeed, the vast majority of basic individual rights of all American citizens–is President Donald Trump. On this, the JMC has uttered not a peep. One might say, “that’s not an educational issue,” but students across the nation are now being kept from returning to their studies by the Muslim ban, and there are many, many more among the 60,000 visas he has just revoked. It is a flimsy excuse indeed.

    So where is the outcry? Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation of this, the favorite word of Schalin and Leef, “tyranny?” And this is not the rhetorical oppression they so glibly trot out with their references to “tyrannical leftist statism” and other convoluted tropes. This is actual, blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power.

    And therein lies the fundamental hypocrisy of the entire rotten edifice. JMC authors, Schalin and Leef in particular, will happily lambaste and pummel junior faculty , student activists, struggling public universities, and anyone else who can’t hit back. But when faced with an existential threat to the principles they claim they so cherish, when that threat is a figure who might contemptuously brush aside the shields of wealth and local influence that Pope provides . . . they remain shamefully silent.

    • p vozzell

      If your LIBERAL you have a mental disorder,U should seek therapy immediately! BLM is a radical uneducated,uninformed,racist bunch of irrelevant LOSERS.

      • DrOfnothing

        Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I give you Exhibit A: Homo trumpensis. Better feed him a Slim Jim before he bites someone and spreads rabies.

        • Richard Smith

          Well at least it’s higher on the evolution scale than Neanderthalis Islamicus Husseinus and its alleged mate, Ugly Chimp Moochelle.

  • johnkwilson

    Among many other things wrong with Schalin’s logic, the clearest is that no one has accused the SJP at Fordham of doing anything wrong. They could not, because they did not yet exist, and Schalin opposes allowing them to exist because it might be harder to ban them later for no good reason. So this is purely guilt by association, and Schalin is saying that SJP should be banned at every campus. But what about the fact that, say, Trump supporters at Trump rallies have occasionally engaged in violence? Should all pro-Trump organizations therefore be banned at college campuses?

    • Alan Cohn

      “Trump supporters at Trump rallies have occasionally engaged in violence?”
      Please site your source here? This is a bald face lie made even more despicable given what we ALL have witnessed at places like Berkeley and NYU just recently and that’s just to name a few..

      • DrOfnothing

        You’re right, they simply engaged in intimidation, vandalism, and racist mass-chanting.

  • martin harris

    When I was sitting in classes on architectural history or structural engineering, The nearby presence of an equally-ignorant minority wouldn’t have helped me learn the subject better. Were he a noisy advocate of the European-design-is-racist or the arithmetic-is-racist (93,000 “‘hits” on the Web) campaign, it would have damaged my effort.
    Martin Harris

  • Jacques du Plessis

    Millenials are often self-absorbed, which means they have a right to speak and they will try to impose their ‘right’ to be noisy, and of course there is no such right to care about listening. When this dysfunction is present, not much good will happen to learn and be enlightened. Civility and ground rules of decorum is not valued by some. So, my advice, understand the ground rules — steer clear when these rattling empty cans come your way. It is your right to set your ground rules when you engage,