I'm Not Sure You Understand the Concept of Free Speech

One of my interests is free speech, particularly on college campuses, so when I found a Washington Post editorial titled Trigger warnings, colleges, and the ‘Swaddled Generation’, I took interest.  The editorials premise was that leftists everywhere are suppressing speech on college campuses.  It has been about nine years since I have studied on a college campus, so maybe I am out of touch with what is going on, and I certainly believe that there are attempts by the left to suppress free speech and silence unpopular ideas.  Largely, people only really believe in free speech when it's not something that personally offends them.  The problem I have with the editorial is that the examples of this suppression they give are unconvincing.  The first example given is trigger warnings, a concept that I find rather bizarre, but not exactly stifling either.

This was the case recently at Georgetown University when Christina Hoff Sommers , resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Who Stole Feminism?,” was greeted by sign-carriers warning: “Anti-Feminism,” with the room number of a “safe space.”

My feeling is generally if you are at college, you should be offended several times a day and learn how to deal with it.  The world sucks, get a helmet.  However, students posting trigger warnings does not rise to the level of suppression of speech.  In this case, some students may be acting immature and illogical, but if you are a speaker with ideas, you need to be prepared for the possibility that people may challenge you on them.  That is also free speech.  The speaker in this case might be a bit of a whiner.

The next example cited is that of commencement speakers withdrawing or being dis-invited from commencements, specifically Condoleezza Rice.  This is an example I find completely unconvincing.  Commencement is never a free exchange of ideas.  It is a captive audience on graduation day and an explicit endorsement of a speaker.  It is one thing for a speaker to be invited to speak at a class, or hold a question and answer session, it is quite another to hold a captive audience and pay a speaker $35,000 (in Rice's case) out of the student's tuition.  Last time I checked the First Amendment didn't guarantee you a $35,000 speaking fee.  Furthermore, Rice was not kept from speaking; she withdrew.  Again, free speech goes both ways; you are entitled to your viewpoints, but so are the people protesting you.  Maybe Rice needs thicker skin.

There are many issues concerning the free expression of ideas on campus and the left is certainly not exempt from this, but these examples are weak sauce.  If you are truly concerned about the free exchange of ideas, then stop the cuts to humanities programs, stop using so many adjuncts, add more tenured positions, restore public funding to universities, and stop pretending as if we should operate schools like businesses.  Money from private interests is by far the greatest threat to free speech on college campuses.