Bollinger: Free Speech, Except on His Own Campus

In a recent interview, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger was asked whether the Hazelwood standard of student speech should be applied to colleges and universities. (Hazelwood gave high-school teachers and administrators broad authority to restrict student speech, in the name of advancing “legitimate pedagogical goals.”) Bollinger issued a strong caution:

“I definitely do not think, and have not thought, it should apply to
public colleges and universities. The recognition for many decades has
been that universities are basically dealing with adults, and our
general conception of free speech and press very much applies in that
context. Sure, there may be slight variations, to accommodate the
purposes and interests of institutions of higher education, but not very
many. And I don’t think that Hazelwood’s sensitivity–to speech that
might be inappropriate or make people uncomfortable–would in any way
apply in the university context. So I would be deeply surprised if that
were the ultimate outcome in a case like that.”

Given Bollinger’s ringing defense of student free speech, I assumed
that the university over which he presides has an excellent record for
protecting student rights. Imagine my surprise, therefore, to see that
not only has Columbia not earned a FIRE green-light rating, it received a
red-light rating, for speech code policies that “both clearly and
substantially restricts freedom of speech.”

For instance, at Columbia, the sexual harassment policy forbids
“unwanted sexual attention,” even if the harassment was “unintentional.”
In other words, in good faith, a male student could ask a female
student for a date–“sexual attention”–and be committing sexual
harassment if the female student didn’t want to be asked.

How could such a policy be reconciled with Bollinger’s professed
belief “that universities are basically dealing with adults,” and that
“Hazelwood’s sensitivity–to speech that might be inappropriate or make
people uncomfortable–would [not] in any way apply in the university
context”?

Or take Columbia’s “gender-based misconduct” policy, which among
other things prohibits “inappropriate sexual innuendoes or humor.”

How could a policy (that appears to deem off-color jokes to be
“gender-based misconduct”) be reconciled with Bollinger’s professed
belief “that universities are basically dealing with adults,” and that
“Hazelwood’s sensitivity–to speech that might be inappropriate or make
people uncomfortable–would [not] in any way apply in the university
context”?

Or take Columbia’s “hate crimes/bias-related incidents” policy, which
targets “behavior motivated by hate,” even, it seems, if the behavior
itself doesn’t violate any other university policy or criminal law. The
reason for such a sweeping definition, the policy explains, is to
address the “deep pain” such actions “have on our entire community.”
Could a Columbia student speaking out against the use of racial
preferences in admissions be deemed guilty of “behavior motivated by
hate”?

How could such a policy–based on an extraordinary sensitivity to
whoever in the Columbia community is most likely to be
offended–reconciled with Bollinger’s professed belief “that universities
are basically dealing with adults,” and that “Hazelwood’s
sensitivity–to speech that might be inappropriate or make people
uncomfortable–would [not] in any way apply in the university context”?

It would seem, therefore, that Bollinger doesn’t consider students at
his own university to be “adults,” and therefore free speech rights at
Columbia–as the Hazelwood case envisions for high school–must be checked
at the gates on 116th Street.

————-
KC Johnson is a Professor of History at Brooklyn College and the
CUNY Graduate Center, and author of the blog Durham-in-Wonderland. He is
co-author, with Stuart Taylor Jr., of “Until Proven Innocent.”