������ýapp�ٷ�

The “” — a policy FIREconsiders to be the gold standard for campus commitments to freedom of expression — recently reached a significant milestone: It is now in place at more than 100 schools or systems of schools nationwide. But, as FIREoften points out, an institution’s work does not end at committing to free speech on paper. 

Take Wheaton College, for example. Its explicitly adapts the Chicago Statement but also includes restrictive language that directly contradicts the Chicago Statement’s core principles. Wheaton’s policy is ����鷡’s Speech Code of the Month for June. 

Wheaton, a private college in Massachusetts, to be “committed to the right of individuals to exercise free expression, including but not limited to political, symbolic, or artistic speech.” 

Wheaton College

Norton, MA

School Ranking

158 of 251

Speech Code

Yellow

Free Speech Climate

Overall score: 43

More Info

Echoing the Chicago Statement, the policy explains that “it is not the College’s role to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find disagreeable or even offensive,” and that “concerns about civility and mutual respect cannot be used as a means for suppressing the discussion of ideas, however disagreeable or offensive those ideas may be to some community members.”

But you don’t have to read much further to see Wheaton contradicting this principle — it does so just a few paragraphs later, in the policy’s rules for “Posting of Written Material.” 

Wheaton permits students to post written materials on designated locations throughout the campus, but says the administration “reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove any written materials.” Basically: FIREcan express themselves, but if an administrator decides they don’t like it, for any reason at their sole discretion, they can remove it. Doesn’t sound like freedom of expression to me!

Next, the policy says posters can’t “target an individual or organization for negative purposes.” So, what if students for Trump want to put up a sign criticizing the Biden administration? Or what if a group that opposes book bans wants to draw attention to of the Moms for Liberty group? An administrator could decide those posters single out an individual or group for a negative purpose and throw their expression in the trash. 

On paper, Wheaton has adopted a statement that represents the gold standard for committing to free expression. Now, it needs to live up to it by ensuring its other policies — or provisions in that same policy — don’t allow free speech to be stifled by administrators. 

So much for Wheaton’s commitment to “a campus culture of lively and fearless freedom of expression.”

Targeting someone for a “negative purpose” could potentially constitute some form of unprotected speech, like a threat. But negative speech about someone is, more often than not, protected, even if it is disagreeable or offensive.

The Supreme Court has been consistently clear on this point. In Snyder v. Phelps, for example, it upheld the overturning of a damages award against the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing with signs at a military funeral. You could certainly say that those signs, with messages such as “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and “Fags Doom Nations,” “target an individual or organization for negative purposes.” But the Court explained: 

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. 

On paper, Wheaton has adopted a statement that represents the gold standard for committing to free expression. Now, it needs to live up to it by ensuring its other policies — or provisions in that same policy — don’t allow free speech to be stifled by administrators. 

����鷡’s Policy Reform team stands ready to help.