G ood for the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, who approved a policy last week that will suspend or expel students who make a habit of disrupting speakers on campus.
This is a free speech issue. While protesters have the right to be heard, they do not have the right to prevent others from speaking their piece, especially at a university, which of all places ought to be a forum for competing ideas.
The Wisconsin policy says students who are found to have twice committed an act of violence or another form of disorderly conduct that disrupts someone’s free speech rights will be suspended from school.
A student who disrupts free expression three times would be expelled.
Critics of the decision say it’s an effort by a Republican-dominated college board to kiss up to GOP lawmakers in the state. Amusingly, the only board member who opposed the policy said it will suppress free speech on campuses, since students are less likely to show up to a protest if they fear expulsion.
That thinking is just wrong. The American tradition of protest goes back to the country’s earliest days. The Boston Tea Party, a reaction to taxes, occurred several years before Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
But with rights come responsibilities, and free speech does have its limits. For example, if an NFL owner wished, he could terminate the contract of a player who ignored a workplace order to stand for the national anthem.
Despite what some college students think, their right to free speech has limits as well. It is disorderly conduct at a minimum to disrupt someone else — such as a campus speaker — who wishes to exercise the same right to be heard as those who disagree with him.
That’s exactly what happened last year at the University of Wisconsin, when students opposed to a visit by a conservative writer shouted him down on campus. Some protests at other schools, notably the University of California at Berkeley, have turned violent.
The ways to object ideas you dislike are obvious. Challenge a speaker with questions after he’s finished his remarks. Present a program against his ideas somewhere else. Or best of all, just ignore him.
Nothing helps an objectionable opinion die more quickly than a lack of attention.
In the case of college protests against conservative speakers, the fact that students have successfully pressured a number of schools into not allowing provocative ideas on campus guaranteed more attention to the disputes. But it’s impossible to win a free-speech argument when you’re the person who opposes letting another idea be heard.
The Constitution promises everyone a voice. But this does not mean that raising your voice — or your fist — to drown out someone else’s is legal.
In fact, such actions are completely against the American tradition of robust and spirited debate. Good for Wisconsin officials who reminded college students of this.
