This week, North Dakota State University is under fire for its statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, including from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The university issued a “statement of inclusivity” that included a pledge to combat “violence in language or in action.” The notion of “violent speech” is a touchstone for the anti-free speech community, which treats the expression of viewpoints as akin to physical attacks on students.
While this is merely a university statement, the inclusion of combatting violent speech as a priority was concerning for many. As I have previously written in columns and my recent book on free speech, violent speech has long been a rallying cry in higher education.
The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views. As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
As one Antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument…you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
When people criticized Antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”
The Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”
University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)
The diversity, equity, and inclusion statement at North Dakota State University maintains that the College of Business aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.” However, the question is how treating speech as violence provides a safe space for free speech on campus.
Blurring the line between speech and violence can lead to censorship and viewpoint intolerance at a university. Speech directed at individuals to threaten them is actionable and potentially criminal. However, sweeping claims that speech is violence are the mantra being used in higher education to rationalize speech codes and censorship. Free speech requires bright lines of protection to avoid the chilling effect of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.
North Dakota State University would be wise to revise its policy statement.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Speech is not violence. Back in the 1960s, when I was kid, our rhyme was: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words would never hurt me.” We lived by that. It’s as true today as in 1968 when Tommy Petzel called me George of the Jungle and I laughed and called him Tommy Pretzel. And so it went in our lives. Childhood fights. Childhood make-ups. We all grew-up and lost contact with each other. But we never fell apart because of ‘mean words.’
Here we go with Turley promoting hate speech and then trying to pretend that he’s not promoting violence against those that he himself despises. So I’m going to ask Turley the question I asked one of his followers – since you are such a huge proponent of hate speech and don’t see any correlation between that hate speech and the violence it incites, you’d be okay if there was a coordinated campaign to vilify your family and incite violence against them, correct? You’d be perfectly okay if your probably equally racist and anti-LGBT family were targeted every day with hate? You’d be supportive if there was a coordinated effort to attack your children and grandchildren with hate? And you’re perfectly okay if adults bully minors in your family because of who they are, because, hey, free speech. If members of your family get bashed, or murdered because of hate speech you so eagerly support, would you be so eager to defend it? But then again, you are so committed to hate driven right wing extremism, you might just think that was a small price to pay in your campaign to dehumanize those whom you hate.
Kudos to North Dakota State University for attempting to protect its student body from bigots like Turley.
What? I realize that thanks to our horrible public education system that 54% of Americans are functionally illiterate (read at a 6th-grade or lower level) but I can’t see how even the functionally illiterate could come up with your critique.
And if we’re going to talk ‘speech causes violence,’ as leftists claim, then the greatest offenders are the left and it isn’t even remotely close. However, the reality that adults understand is that people are in charge of their behaviors and words have no ability to compel violence in those who can use their rational faculties.
WTH are you even talking about? You are clearly biased against anything that isn’t “my approved way of thinking”, and are such a snowflake that to you, disagreeing with you is “violence”. Funny thing is, you are the one threatening and bullying. Turley has never, to my knowledge, endorsed violence, physical OR verbal, against groups or persons he disagrees with. You clearly are implying you are in favor of violence against him or his family, based on what you wrote. Take a look in the mirror, buck-o!
It is ironic that a university can’t properly define violence.
* Read most of the comments. DEI is just an upgraded way of saying affirmative action. Did the court strike AA?
Hegseth’s hearing was intrusive. Checking his criminal background should suffice. If it’s clean there’s no need for personal questions. Were the inquirers concerned he’d be making passes at the pentagon? He might have responded by saying that’s none of your business.
Violent speech? Perhaps speaking in a low voice would go a long way. It’s true one should not say to another, I’m going to kill you. People driven to hysteria or annoyed might say such but it has no meaning. It’s hyperbole.
What is violent speech?
I watched as much of the Senate Hearings I could stomach.
Clearly, Hirono, Warren, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Kaine, and particularly Duckworth all demonstrated the value of free speech particularly in politics.
That their version is far too often devoid of fact and truth and filled with vitriol and hypocrisy was clearly demonstrated in the Confirmation Hearings.
They relied upon anonymous sources as usual….sources that could not or would not step forward and point their own finger at Hegseth.
All you have to do is watch Tammy Duckworth spewing spit and vitriol in a most undignified way for a US Senator and you can understand what the Good Professor is describing.
Blumenthal who earned a nick name of “Da Nang Dick” for his lies about his military service sits in the Senate passing judgement on Hegseth.
Kaine who was Hillary Clinton’s VP partner in her failed try to become President never said squat about Bill Clinton’s problems with the Ladies yet hammered Hegseth.
Hirono, well….Maisy was being her usual self….and thicker than two short boards.
Warren who is affectionately know and “Fauxcahontas for her false claims of being a Native American also sits on the committee.
Whitehouse as usual ran a sea shanty attempt and ran up on the rocks of reality.
Those folks are proof positive of why we need genuine free speech….so we can watch them in action then have the ability to shine a very bright light on them in our discussions re politics.
As the Good Professor has taught us….”Good Speech trumps Bad Speech”….in the end. Truth shall always set us free.
Folks, we need more free speech not less and we need to see action taken that advances both the ability of such speech and what the Good Speech is instructing us actually being acted upon and those spewing the bad speech being held culpable for that speech.
In the Congress and other elected Offices there is always the Voter that can decide how that is done….by voting the deceitful and vile speaking out of Office.
Had I been Hegseth I would have stopped Duckworth in her tracks during her “Yes or No?” act by smiling and saying “Ms. Duckworth we are not married….you should not talk to me in such a manner!” in public.
After all….there is not a single Democrat that is going to vote for Hegseth purely out of partisan politics and he would not have lost a single vote by responding in a similar manner. Yet, here we are, having lost an election and the Democrats just cannot accept the reasons why….that being their Lies caught up with them in a manner that even the Media could not hide, yet they persist in the vile ways on public television for all to see.
With each confirmation vote where the Nominee is approved we shall see proof positive that bad speech loses.
* Perhaps nominees might make it clear at the end of their opening statements that they will not answer questions about their families, friends and acquaintances pointing out that the FBI has fully “vetted” their records. In that way they can respond, it’s not part of the job description.
Well in the DEI world of “affirmative action” as you say, violent speech is anything the supposed victim states they believe it to be and especially if it was stated by a White person to a minority person of victim-hood. Saying good morning, would be sufficient to interpret it as a violent Whiteness attack.
Universities are run by racketeers fishing for donations from the likes of Soros’ global sop-trough. Lock up these racketeers and excise tax the devil out of their ridiculous endowments. Giving these arrogant sobs is for the good of society!
Saloth Sar
* Violent speech is free. The character of the speaker is the restraint, ethics. Chuck Schumer is unethical as an example.
President Donald J. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Mason et al. were effectively convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Manhattan District Attorney today announced the all-count trial conviction of DONALD J. TRUMP, 77, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. TRUMP was convicted by a New York State Supreme Court jury of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. He is expected to be sentenced on July 11.”
– Alvin Bragg
________________
“If they had captured him, or any of the other leaders of the rebels, terrorists and insurgents of the colonial civil war, the loyal British might well have hanged al of the British turncoats as traitors. Obviously, all of them were guilty of treason.
“After the French, Spanish and Dutch defeated the loyal British, the British colonies were granted independence as 13 sovereign republics, and that grant of independence essentially nullified any opportunity to prosecute the traitors for treason after 1783.
“By The Treason Act of 1777 (as renewed annually through 1783) Parliament authorized the arrest and incarceration of anyone suspected of high treason or piracy. That certainly included George Washington, the members of the Second Continental Congress that signed the Declaration of Independence, and the members of the many colonial governmental bodies that had passed resolutions of Independence before the Congress did so on July 2, 1776.”
– Tom Stahr