Political Censorship on Campus
POLITICAL CENSORSHIP ON CAMPUS
Jay R. Mandle
Since Democracy Matters’ 2001 founding, our student activists have repeatedly confronted university-imposed restrictions on partisan political speech. With few exceptions, students are told they are not free to advocate for candidates or political parties.
Studies of the barriers to campus free-speech totally ignore this form of censorship. It is absent from the College Free Speech Rankings published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions (FIRE). FIRE’s rankings report on students’ responses concerning the clarity of university rules on free speech, and they also measure student comfort in expressing controversial views. But the ban on politics is not mentioned. Though hard data on the subject is not available, the unsettling experiences of Democracy Matters students nevertheless make clear that free speech bans on campus are widespread and long-standing.
Prohibition on partisan student activity is typically masked by affirming the importance of free speech. Columbia University’s policy statement on “Partisan Political Activities” is typical. It declares that university-related organizations “may utilize available University building space…to engage in partisan campaign activities within the University community.”
But a footnote attached to that sentence adds, “when such University-related organizations engage in partisan political campaign activities aimed outside the University community, they may not utilize University space for such activities.” Language such as this is typical, and is understood by university administrators to enable them to impose a total ban on student partisan political activity. They explain to student activists that on-campus political engagement is “aimed outside the University community.”
The stated justification for bans such as Columbia’s is that they are required to protect the school’s 501 (c) (3) status as a non-profit tax-exempt organization. The Columbia statement in this regard is explicit: as a non-profit educational institution it is “prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidates for public office.”
However, the fact is that university bans restricting partisan activity on campus misinterpret the law. As the FIRE statement on the subject puts it, while universities and colleges “are prohibited from participating in political campaigns as institutions, individual students, student groups, and faculty members do not endanger their institution’s tax-exempt status when such speech is clearly separate and distinct from the institution’s views or opinions. The presumption is that such speech does not represent the views of the university as an institution.” In short, bans by colleges and universities on student partisan activism are not required by law.
Those bans nevertheless do exist. And as a result, students are denied their right toparticipate as full citizens in electoral politics. They are prevented from posting flyers, presenting classroom announcements, or tabling with information that urges support for their chosen candidates. And they cannot invite a candidate to meet them with them nor to speak on campus. With the exception of non-partisan voter registration efforts, campuses are compelled to remain silent during campaign season.
One consequence is that single-issue political organizations such as those dealing with racial justice, LGBTQ+ and environmental issues dominate political activity on campuses. In contrast to electoral politics where coalition-building is central to achieving power, campus organizations rarely work together. They remain isolated from one another because for them real political power is not at stake. Their student members in consequence fail to learn the important art of political coalition-building and the skills needed to achieve political power.
In an era of growing authoritarianism, the ban on student political speech means that the strong student opposition to Trumpian politics has been muzzled. That their opposition is intense was reported by the Harvard Institute of Politics survey undertaken about a year ago. Of the students polled, while 78 percent reported that it was important to them that America is a democracy, 64 percent disagreed that “American democracy is working as well as it should.” Most suggestive was the fact that only 7% of those surveyed believed that the United States possessed a “healthy democracy.”
The message conveyed by university bans is that partisan political activity is toxic and should be avoided. Students are discouraged from gaining the experience needed to be effective actors in the political system.
Nonetheless it is possible to reduce the mismatch between students’ political experience and what is required to participate in electoral politics. The ban on partisan campus activity can be lifted. This would enable a young cohort to become politically active, young people both motivated and equipped to play an active role in the country’s politics.
The decision to free students from the campus bans on electoral politics will have to be made by administrators who imposed the bans in the first place. To date, there is no evidence that such a reversal is even contemplated. But until bans on political activity are removed, electoral politics in the United States will continue to be deprived of the skills, energy and enthusiasm that students can provide.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jay Mandle is the Emerita W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good,. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website, and explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues.
The views expressed in Money On My Mind are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters, and are meant to stimulate discussion.