Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus (review)

The threat of terrorism has resulted in a national discussion about balancing liberty with security and, in that context, Benjamin Franklin, who observed "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," is often quoted. That observation has meaning for student affairs leaders as they deal with hate speech, harassment, and student conduct while attempting to respect tolerance, civility, and diversity. Downs' Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus has as its purpose to detail how attempts to manage campus environments by imposing speech codes, in affect reducing freedom, have resulted in diminished intellectual liberties. The contribution his work makes, however, is not in recounting examples of overly conservative administrators controlling behaviors, and there is much of that, but in suggesting how "students, faculty, and even administrators can retrieve liberal principles of freedom on campus through conscientious political commitment and mobilization" (p. xv).

An activist and professor, Downs used case study methodology to present his thesis that campus life policies aimed at restricting freedom in favor of promoting respect and tolerance have diminished learning environments because the free exchange of ideas necessary for the pursuit of truth is no longer as valued as are political or sensitivity agendas. At one point, early in his career, Downs was a defender of speech codes. In the first section of this three part book, he recounted his transition from that position to his present role as an advocate for the principles of freedom and individualism on campus. His philosophical metamorphose was aided by the arguments presented by students who felt that speech codes implied that students needed to be protected and such protections represented a return to in loco parentis. Students convinced him that they were capable of handling the challenges of citizenship and that they could do so without institutionally imposed restrictions. Downs introduced that theme early and repeated it often: that the learning process is compromised when campus policies aimed at controlling expressions of intolerance are used to regulate the exchange of ideas. Such codes do not exist elsewhere in society and having them in place on campuses reduces the likelihood that the collegiate experience will prepare students for life following college. A second theme, also often repeated, is that student affairs administrators, those persons on campus who are usually responsible for enforcing speech codes, frequently do so without regard to the basic concepts of liberty.

In part 2, entitled "Case Studies in the Politics of Civil Liberty on Campus," Downs detailed efforts to impose restrictions at four campuses. In 2000, in an effort to address concerns that sexual assaults were being covered up, the University Senate at Columbia enacted a sexual misconduct policy that specifically disallowed several procedural due process rights. The new policy also set up special administrative panels to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases. Downs recounted development of the sexual misconduct policy, a history replete with student demonstrations and debate and, eventually, the challenges to it by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Using a variety of impressive political tactics, including outside pressure, FIRE attacked the policy. Critics, feminists among them, noted that the policy, while "well-intended, is profoundly flawed." In the summer of 2001 Columbia began a process to modify the sexual misconduct policy, changes that while not addressing all of the civil liberty concerns, did at least acknowledge the due process rights of the accused. Downs concluded that the changes were more the result of pressure than conviction and that the leadership of Columbia, including administrators, missed an opportunity teach by example the "basic principles of due process."

The University of California at Berkeley has long been identified with free speech movements. Downs, however, noted that even during the 1960s when that movement began there, free speech applied only to those who were in agreement with the objectives of the movement. He conducted a site visit to Berkeley in 2001 to determine the status of free speech on the campus...