Site menu:


July 2015 - Volume 21, Number 3


Click Here for a pdf version.



A Liberal Calls out Intolerant Leftists Who Smother Free Speech on Campus

By Adam Kissel

When Columbia University’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board complained a few weeks ago that “many texts in the Western canon [contain] triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities,” I thought of China, whose education minister vowed to ban “textbooks promoting Western values” earlier this year.  


The rise of intolerance on campus and beyond makes a new book by columnist and television commentator Kirsten Powers a must-read. If you do not yet believe that American higher education is smothered in intolerance of diverse ideas, read The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Nations like China might be expected to shut down a free exchange of ideas, but American students, professors, and university presidents all too frequently try to marginalize and ban disfavored words, values, and ideas.


People might be surprised to learn how many colleges have fundamentally restricted free inquiry. It has become so pervasive that honest liberals like Powers are writing books that alert us to the danger. The Silencing provides dozens and dozens of examples of “illiberal” leftists who use silencing as a preferred tactic.  


I know how intolerant colleges and universities can be because I worked on several of the cases in Powers’ book when I was defense director and vice president at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Take, for instance, the professor who wielded a box cutter against a “free speech wall” at Sam Houston State because someone had written a political statement against President Obama. The police told the students that they were responsible for provoking the violence, so they had to censor the wall or take it down.


Or Yale University’s ban of a quotation from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s This Side of Paradise because there is no room at Yale — at Yale — for the words, “I think of all Harvard men as sissies, like I used to be.”


These cases are from the chapter “Intolerance 101.” They get worse in “Intolerance 201,” which reports that entire Christian student organizations have been banned for requiring that their leaders believe in the groups’ mission. This is not the real reason the groups have been banned, according to FIRE president Greg Lukianoff. He has seen “college after college…specifically angry at evangelical groups for their position on gay rights” look for ways to keep such groups off campus.


Most colleges do promise and claim to encourage toleration. Yale alerts students that in 1975, Yale’s Woodward Report explained that intellectual advances require freedom to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” The exercise of this freedom is inherently unsettling.


Nevertheless, Yale College tells its freshmen, “When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”


The principle is wonderful: free expression deserves honor. Like Yale, most private colleges promise to tolerate the widest diversity of ideas. They offer the same level of speech protection that the First Amendment requires of public colleges. They have faculty handbooks that promise academic freedom. They claim to be in the business of advancing knowledge, correcting rather than reproducing the superstitions, taboos, errors, and biases of the campus culture.


Yet, time after time, when the most intolerant sector of the campus rises as a mob to declare “no room on our campus” for ideas or for speakers they see as representing unacceptable minority views, administrators lose their courage. Many faculty members also lose their courage and remain silent.


How many faculty members have stood up for free speech at Yale over the past ten years? How many defended the infamous “Mohammed cartoons” after Yale University Press banned them from a scholarly book about the reaction to those very cartoons? I can’t recall a single one.


From their silent role models, students learn that silencing works. The mob learns that colleges like Brandeis, which disinvited women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali from campus, will succumb to criticism rather than defend freedom. Powers provocatively and correctly calls what Brandeis did “appeasement.”


Powers makes it clear that such intolerance comes not from the liberal left but from the “illiberal left.” Whether the illiberal left is declaring an idea so dangerous it should be banned, sniffing off or laughing off an idea so as to discredit it, or playing identity politics and delegitimizing a speaker no matter how good her argument, faculty members too often keep their heads down and let these tactics win.


From their role models on the faculty, students learn to be activists themselves. They see that it’s easy to win points and purify the public square by whining. They use long words and long sentences to describe how oppressed they are, but they are whining all the same.


From their activist role models and their silent ones, students conclude that silencing tactics are the right ones for winning an argument. Rather than developing their minds, college turns them into uncritical, intolerant advocates of illiberal politics. Students learn to pose as fragile water lilies while they loudly cry out for “protection” from those who dare to disagree with them.


Accordingly, Powers argues, students fail to learn how to win arguments through dialogue and persuasion. They miss out on the valuable experience of vigorous argument that shakes your assumptions, but develop the bad intellectual habit of crying to authorities when they hear (or merely fear) opposing points of view.


In contrast, higher education can enable a community of wisdom-seekers to deeply challenge one another. The community value in academia is toleration en route to knowledge. There must be room for every idea, even the “unthinkable” and “unmentionable.”


Powers puts it this way: “Higher education should provide an environment to test new ideas, debate theories, encounter challenging information, and figure out what one believes. Campuses should be places where students [and faculty members, administrators, and visitors] are able to make mistakes without fear of retribution.”


Unfortunately, few professors are willing to stand up for toleration and the highest ideals of university life — a life they have chosen for themselves. To defend this life, far more of them need to acknowledge that intolerance is interfering with the fundamental ideals both of the university and civil society, as intolerance spreads.


Kirsten Powers, speaking as a journalist on the liberal left, is a voice of reason for persuading illiberal journalists to check their biases and take a more tolerant approach. Her book’s exposure of similar biases in higher education should motivate liberal professors to promote toleration and free expression on campus for the sake of principle, intellectual progress, and the education of the next generation.


I encourage faculty members and university administrators who share our higher vision of a university, and who want to promote it on your campus, to contact me. We can change the culture of silencing by demonstrating the virtue of tolerant engagement.


Originally published May 20, 2015, by the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Adam Kissel was previously the Defense Director and Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Reprinted with the author’s permission.


FACTS & OPINIONS is one of our quarterly membership newsletters, arriving in January, April, July, and October. It consists of short articles of public interest with an emphasis on current issues.


FACTS & OPINIONS is published by Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, research and educational institute, whose activities are supported by contributions from private individuals, corporations, companies, and foundations. The Institute does not accept government grants.


Contributions are tax-deductible under sections 501(c)(3) and 170 of the Internal Revenue Code.


Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from FACTS & OPINIONS, a quarterly newsletter of Public Interest
Institute." The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute.


If you have an article you believe is worth sharing, please send it to us. All or a portion of your article may be used. The articles in this publication are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry, because IDEAS DO MATTER.



All of our publications are available for sponsorship.  Sponsoring a publication is an excellent way for you to show your support of our efforts to defend liberty and define the proper role of government.  For more information, please contact Public Interest Institute at 319-385-3462 or e-mail us at