What Conservative Free Speech Advocates are Missing: Self-Censorship on College Campus is a Choice, Not a Requirement

Students at a lecture at Tulane University in New Orleans. Photo by Albert Herring.

Are our rights to freedom of speech under attack on college campuses?

At my predominantly white private high school, we often had discussions similar to ones sparked by this question. Certain students claimed they “didn’t have a voice” when it came to political discussions, often feeling like they were unable to express their opinions without facing any consequences—typically in the form of social scrutiny. More often than not, the opinions of conservative students were met with hearty discourse because their beliefs did not reflect the common ideology of the student body. There were few political issues on which my own opinion dissented from that of the student body, but there were enough that I knew what it felt like to be the only one in a room advocating for an unpopular opinion. However, I had never opted to stay silent. For that reason, I was quick to dismiss the complaints of the conservative students.

Cut to my first few months of college, and I’ve since learned that the discussion around freedom of speech grows more colorful, including not only university students, but university officials as well. While I was in high school, the University of Chicago’s Dean of Students John Ellison released a notice addressing the exact issue my peers and I had begun debating superficially. The letter proved to be incredibly controversial; professors and pundits including Robert J. Zimmer—president of the University of Chicago—rushed to defend Ellison’s remarks, while students among others openly criticized the piece. Dean Ellison expressed the university’s “commitment to academic freedom,” writing, “Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community.” In order to maintain such a pillar of the university, he went on, they do not “support so-called ‘trigger warnings…’ and [they] do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Ellison did not specify which demographic of students (if any) he feels is being disadvantaged when the community does not uphold the “commitment to academic freedom” in the way he envisions. Still, much of the conversation about freedom of speech on college campuses has come to revolve around conservative students’ rights to such liberties. In an article from The Atlantic, journalist Conor Friedersdorf argues yes, freedom of speech is under attack on college campuses. Friedersdorf cited a study done at the University of North Carolina that reports conservative students self-censoring at higher rates than liberal students, and the results of a survey conducted by the Knight Foundation concur; while only 1.5 percent of liberal students reported self-censoring more than 10 times, 17 percent of conservative students reported the same degree of self-censorship. 

Studies like these ones certainly call attention to a growing trend on college campuses, but I believe it isn’t an infringement of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. There is clearly a serious degree of peer-pressure culture on college campuses but nothing more, because the same studies that found conservative students are more prone to self-censorship also found that conservative students are more concerned about offending their peers with their views—which is why they do not speak up. The same UNC study found that “most weeks,” 32.5 percent of conservative students are concerned that “peers would lower [their] opinion” based on the views they expressed, while only 1.7 percent of liberal students reported the same. The Knight Foundation discovered similar numbers; in their same study, 40 percent of conservative students “say they have some level of ‘concern’ that other students would file a complaint against them based on something they say in a class that discusses politics.” Even at the University of Chicago, which was ranked by FIRE as the best institution for free speech in 2020, 75 percent of students identifying as “strong Republicans” report self-censorship because they are afraid of how their peers will respond.

Student-led protest at the University of Minnesota after the College Republicans painted a mural with the words “Build The Wall”. Photo by Fibonaci Blue.

Yes, these studies prove conservative students self-censor at higher rates than students of other political ideologies, but they don’t prove that any fundamental rights are under attack. The reports merely show that conservative students self-censor more because they are more fearful their opinions will be viewed as insensitive or offensive and result in negative responses from peers. Just because someone chooses not to voice their opinion due to fear of the social consequences doesn’t mean that their rights are facing a legitimate threat. To conservative advocates up in arms about this phenomenon, your American ability to speak freely is still very much intact. 

For example, there was a student at my high school who posted a comment on Instagram that asserted Black people are more often brutalized and killed by the police because they commit more crimes. He was met with impassioned condemnations from other students, but his right to make such a statement was never taken away or in question. Just as he had every right to express his opinion on the issue, the backlash he faced was also justified.

Comments like his, though, are just forms of hate-speech disguised as “political opinions.” To be completely candid, the social consequences they are so often met with on college campuses should absolutely be taken into consideration before they are spoken aloud. This doesn’t mean, however, that students discouraging hate-speech are suppressing or infringing upon First Amendment rights. Written eloquently by President Bollinger in an article for The Atlantic, “When students express concern and discomfort about speech that is hateful, racist, or noxious in other ways, they are doing nothing unreasonable or historically unprecedented.”

To be clear: our First Amendment rights are not under attack on college campuses. Sure, the general public now tends to frown upon offensive comments, and opinions dissenting that public ideology are less popular by default—and often discouraged—but that doesn’t mean any basic American liberties have been lost. In high school, it was frightening at times to argue with a class-sized group of students entirely on my own, and I imagine it will remain so at the college level, but it is something that can be done because the rights to free speech are alive and well. In collegiate political discussions, self-censorship is a choice, not a requirement.

However, I believe this culture of peer pressure on college campuses—unintentionally highlighted by the articles and studies exploring the issue of self-censorship—must be further discussed. The divide between conservative and liberal self-censorship was emphasized, but it is applicable to any student who wishes to express an unpopular opinion. Even if a political opinion isn’t rooted in intolerance and bigotry, I think a lot of college students find it difficult to openly dissent to liberal public opinion; therefore, they are more likely to self-censor.

I have only been a Barnard student for a few weeks, and I haven’t even lived on a college campus yet, but I’ve had enough time to pick up on which political opinions are considered acceptable by the student body and which are not. My political opinions frequently align with those of the student body which has a more liberal ideology. However, just like in high school, I also maintain opinions that are not traditionally left-leaning—or not as left-leaning as is acceptable on college campuses—regarding Israeli foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, and higher education, to name a few. 

While we have established rights to free speech are not truly under siege, it can still be daunting to debate an entire class about a particular political issue—especially if you’re likely to face the same so-called “social sanctions” for expressing an opinion that is not bigoted as someone with an opinion legitimately rooted in prejudice. Take taxes as an example—an issue seen by many college students as partisan. Those on the right tend to want lower taxes for wealthy Americans, while those on the left often wish to raise them for those same citizens. This historically contested issue in America has generated much discourse, but if liberal students at predominantly liberal institutions discourage their conservative counterparts from saying they believe taxes should be lowered and explaining why, we lose that critical dialogue between those two political perspectives. In forming an echo chamber of a certain ideology, we do ourselves a disservice, leaving everyone without the proper chance to understand or even hear out the opposition.

And this is something many universities are concerned about. In a spirit similar to that of the letter written by the University of Chicago’s dean of students, President Clayton Rose of Bowdoin College encouraged all students to be “intellectually fearless.” He claims, “a great liberal arts education and liberal arts experience must make you uncomfortable… Don’t avoid being uncomfortable, embrace it… Engage with it in a thoughtful, objective, and respectful way. This is how you learn.” President Peter Salovey of Yale University echoed the same sentiments. “[Yale] is a place for you to learn how and why to gravitate toward people who view things differently than you do, who will test your most strongly held assumptions,” he said. “You have come to a place where civil disagreements and deep rethinking are the heart and soul of the enterprise, where we prize exceptional diversity of views...”

Perhaps, then, the public should re-examine which opinions it wants to so vehemently discourage and which merit a legitimate debate. Are opinions concerning traditional and partisan issues as abhorrent and worthy of suppression as opinions that express both implicit and explicit bigotry and hate? Of course not. So, should a student claiming a flat tax is a good system face the same level of social scrutiny as does the student who claims Black people are more prone to criminal activity? The same answer prevails— of course not.

Noa Fay is a staff writer at CPR and in her first year at Barnard College. She is passionate about politics as well as singing opera, reading, and writing. In January 2020 she published her first novel.