Table of Contents
In the Name of Free Exchange of Ideas, CSU Los Angeles Resorts to Censorship
Another story of administrative censorship made headlines yesterday, this time out of California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA). CSULA鈥檚 president, William Covino, is the latest university president to take it upon himself to due to the views of an invited speaker. The target of Covino鈥檚 censorship is conservative author and political commentator Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of the Breitbart News Network.
Shapiro鈥檚 lecture, to have been hosted tomorrow by the CSULA Young America鈥檚 Foundation (YAF), was titled 鈥溾 and was predictably controversial. According to the event鈥檚 Facebook page, Shapiro was planning to 鈥渄iscuss how trigger warnings, 鈥榙iversity鈥, microaggressions, Black Lives Matter, safe spaces and #concernedstudents1950 poses a threat to freedom of speech on college campuses.鈥 Heated back-and-forths ensued, as did calls for counter-protests against Shapiro鈥檚 message. This is the system working as it should鈥攚ith speech being met with more speech.
As for an illustration of how the system 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 work, however, you could hardly do better than president Covino鈥檚 unilateral decision to cancel Shapiro鈥檚 speech in order to delay it indefinitely, until CSULA can arrange a 鈥渕ore inclusive鈥 event at which Shapiro is part of a diverse panel of speakers.
Here鈥檚 the full text of the email President Covino sent to the YAF chapter Monday night:
After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro's appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university's dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints. We will be happy to work with Mr. Shapiro to schedule the more inclusive event that I have in mind. I have informed the university staff involved in facilitating the February 25 event that it will be rescheduled and reconfigured for a later date.
As the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) , Covino鈥檚 email came in response to a letter regarding a $621.50 security fee CSULA charged YAF because the university deemed Shapiro鈥檚 views 鈥渃ontroversial.鈥 This is an apparent violation of YAF鈥檚 First Amendment rights because it effectively places a price tag on the content of their speech, conditioning their right to free expression on their ability to subsidize the potentially disruptive actions of those who would rather not hear it. This is flatly incompatible with Supreme Court jurisprudence, as we have repeatedly reminded universities over the years. As the Court held in in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134鈥35 (1992), 鈥淸l]isteners鈥 reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation鈥. Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.鈥
If Covino thinks he鈥檚 dodged a First Amendment controversy by cancelling YAF鈥檚 event, he鈥檚 sorely mistaken.
It seems quite clear, for one, that the cancellation of the event is motivated by a distaste for Shapiro鈥檚 views. This is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 836 (1995), for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that 鈥淸f]or the University, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation鈥檚 intellectual life, its college and university campuses.鈥
Just as unconstitutional is Covino鈥檚 decree that Shapiro鈥檚 speech is only fit to be heard if there are opposing speakers and viewpoints on hand. If CSULA wants to have its own event and invite Shapiro to be part of a diverse panel of speakers, it is free do so. But it鈥檚 a clear violation of YAF鈥檚 First Amendment right to freedom of association to force the group to include speakers opposed to Shapiro鈥檚 message as a condition of hosting him on campus. Again, the Supreme Court is clear on this principle, unanimously ruling that 鈥淸s]ince all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid, one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 鈥榳hat not to say.鈥欌 Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573 (1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Covino makes a joke of inclusivity by compelling YAF to include opposing speakers in its event against its wishes in the name of 鈥渢he free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.鈥 That is simply not how the First Amendment works. And almost assuredly, it establishes a clear double standard by which YAF is being penalized. Is CSU going to tell all student organizations that potentially controversial speakers need to be 鈥渂alanced鈥 by those holding opposing viewpoints? Of course it isn鈥檛. Far likelier is that CSULA will employ this tactic when certain invited speakers prove sufficiently upsetting. By cancelling YAF鈥檚 event, CSULA provides a roadmap to students who would suppress the speech of their opponents by wresting control of their platforms from them, in the hope that doing so would prevent certain disfavored opinions or speakers from being heard on campus.
Beyond being unconstitutional, Covino鈥檚 actions betray a lack of faith in students鈥 ability to hear ideas and make judgments on their own, without needing a carefully stage-managed program to guide them through. If CSULA鈥檚 students aren鈥檛 feeling condescended to, they should be. Like we鈥檝e seen at Williams College in recent days, where president Adam Falk categorically barred writer John Derbyshire from the campus, the lack of respect for students鈥 agency in the educational process is jarring.
Unlike Falk鈥檚 actions at Williams, which is a private institution, Covino鈥檚 actions have the additional effect of violating CSULA students鈥 First Amendment rights. CSULA must promptly reverse itself, and FIREwill be watching to see that it does.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.