Free Speech on Campus

Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin

Political Science 334

Spring 2022


PROVOCATEURS AT COMMENCEMENT (March 23)

Case Study #1

Because she was the 2021 valedictorian of her high school class at Dallas’ Lake Highlands High School, Paxton Smith was slated to deliver a speech at commencement. She submitted her pre-written speech, which focused on how media and TV shaped her worldview, to school officials. The officials signed off on it.

 But Smith didn’t deliver the pre-approved speech. Instead, she devoted her speech to condemning Texas’s new—and highly restrictive—abortion law. (Passed in 2021, the law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.) Only her parents knew about her plan to switch speeches; she didn’t tell any of her classmates out of fear that they would “tip-off” the school district.  

After her speech, school administrators apparently considered withholding her diploma. But they did not, and Smith is now a first-year student at  University of Texas at Austin. (For other reactions to Paxton’s “surprise rewrite,” click here and here.)

Looking back, Smith continues to believe she made the right decision by jettisoning her pre-approved speech.  "I think a lot of times some of the most important voices in the issue are not listened to," Smith said.  "It deeply affects every person differently and very personally ... and I think that's something that needed to be talked about."

Case Study #2

Steven William Thrasher, who had completed his doctorate at NYU's Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, was selected by the university to be a commencement speaker. The administration asked Thrasher to provide a version of his speech for review before the commencement. Thrasher complied, but his remarks diverged from the speech the administration reviewed in an important way: Thrasher took the opportunity to express support for the BDS movement.

In a public statement issued after Thrasher’s speech, NYU's President Andrew Hamilton wrote:

I found it quite objectionable that the student speaker chose to make use of the Graduate School of Arts and Science doctoral graduation to express his personal viewpoints on BDS and related matters, language he excluded from the version of the speech he had submitted before the ceremony. We are sorry that the audience had to experience these inappropriate remarks. A graduation should be a shared, inclusive event; the speaker's words—one-sided and tendentious—indefensibly made some in the audience feel unwelcome and excluded.

The Dean of NYU's graduate school, Phillip Brian Harper, echoed the sentiment in a letter to Thrasher:

You are, of course, entitled to hold whatever views you wish. [Convocation,] however, is meant to be a collective celebration of scholarly and intellectual achievement. As such, it brings together a large number of participants with potentially wide-ranging views on a whole host of topics. For this very reason, it is an inappropriate forum for ad hoc expression of support for specific political causes.

Also expressing disagreement were the President and Provost at Northwestern, where Thrasher would soon join the faculty.

Some commentators, though, defended Thrasher, while condemning administrators at NYU. Here's an example from a post on the Academe Blog:

In [his public] statement, Hamilton confessed to some appalling violations of the principles of academic freedom and free speech on campus.

First, he admits that NYU compels prior review of speeches on campus. Prior review is deplorable when imposed at a grade school. To have it happening at one of the world's leading universities is scandalous.

Second, Hamilton confesses that if Thrasher had submitted his speech, he would not have been allowed to give it.

Third, Hamilton claims that one-sided, political comments are indefensible because they might make "some in the audience feel unwelcome and excluded.'' This is an extraordinarily dangerous standard for a university to declare. I assume that Hamilton believes many aspects of NYU's education should be "inclusive,'' not just commencement ceremonies. If this standard of feeling unwelcome due to political speech is applied to the classroom, campus speakers, or any aspect of campus life, it would impose severe censorship on campus.

Readings

  1. Please read the material linked in the case studies and watch the videos of the two speeches (click on the links above)

  2. Steven Lubet, "Why It Is Wrong to Harangue a Captive Audience at Graduation," Academe Blog, June 3, 2019

  3. Hank Reichman, "On Commencement Speakers," Academe Blog, June 27, 2019

  4. Excerpt of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Section/Class Activities

Sections will defend (and debate) the following positions

  1. Defend the position that administrators should review graduation speeches before delivery and force speakers to make changes.

  2. Defend the position that administrators should not review graduation speeches before delivery.

  3. Do your positions on 1./2. above change depending on whether the speech is delivered at a high school versus a college/university graduation? Should it matter?

  4. Should administrators respond to “controversial” speeches? If so, what is the appropriate response(s)?