September 29, 2023 - 5:00pm
Censorship and cancellation efforts have accelerated on college campuses in recent years. But many still argue over where the support for these policies originates, whether it be the faculty, students, or administrators. A new survey shows that the force of student opinions on campus censorship should not be overlooked, though their views are more complicated than they may appear at first glance.
This week, the Buckley Institute at Yale University released the results from a survey of 802 four-year American college students on their views on free speech, censorship, and other political issues. The survey shows a majority (63%) support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements as a condition of employment at their university. This is just a 4% point decline from their 2022 results. Unsurprisingly, liberal and moderate students were more likely to support mandatory DEI statements compared to conservative students.
Perhaps even more concerning, a slight majority (51%) of students in the survey supported “speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty”. This is a 10% point increase from last year, and the first time in the history of the survey (since 2015) that an outright majority favoured speech codes. In addition, this is also the first year in which students support ‘shout downs’ than oppose them.
Given these results, it may seem surprising that several major universities are conducting free speech initiatives this year. One interpretation could be that they would like to convince students to adapt to the academic environment by dropping their censorious views. But another reason could be that students’ views on free speech are more complex.
The same survey found that 69% of students considered it more important for their university to “encourage free speech and intellectual diversity” than prevent “offensive or insensitive dialogue”. It’s important to consider the implications of this result in context of the previous ones. For instance, at least 20% of students both support speech codes and believe that free speech is more important than preventing offensive dialogue. How can both be possible?
The most likely explanation is that students simply don’t grasp the tradeoffs inherent to either free speech or DEI policies. It’s a common problem in public opinion surveys that is perhaps best illustrated by surveys on federal spending, where most citizens agree that spending should be reduced but do not support reductions in any of the main programmes.
But the tradeoff between free speech and DEI policies is very real, and students should be made aware of it. DEI initiatives compel students and faculty to espouse progressive views if they want to remain in their university’s good graces. This goes directly against the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity that students claim to support.
The results from the Buckley Institute’s survey show that student opinions on free speech need to be reckoned with if we want to restore academic freedom and intellectual diversity on college campuses. While free speech initiatives are a good start, firm institutional commitments must explicitly prioritise free speech over other values, such as DEI. And educators should work to make students more aware of the tradeoffs between free speech and regulations on offensive speech.
Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold
neetu_arnold
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWe must stop tip-toeing around this issue. Politicians insisting “Islam is a religion of Peace” and pretending such attacks have “nothing to do with Islam” is a dangerous fantasy. The UK Govt, since the threat of Islamist terror came to our shores, has been at pains to try and ignore the fact that these jihadis explicitly commit atrocities in the name of their faith. The state seems reluctant to admit this obvious fact for fear of upsetting Muslim communities. Of course the majority of Muslims do not condone such atrocities, though many seem reticent to condemn their co-religionists publicly.
Not being free to discuss that point is, itself, a real problem and only provides cover in which Islamic extremism can flourish in our midst, unchallenged.
There is no rehabilitation possible for men such as Suddesh Amman or Usman Khan. Once you have a person who genuinely believes that whatever evil they commit is divinely mandated then it is impossible to convince them of their error. What logic or reason is going to persuade someone who believes, as a matter of fundamentalist faith, that murdering unbelievers will earn them an eternity in paradise?
Returning ISIS fighters, those who attended Al Qaeda training camps and even those home-grown jihadis who can view beheading videos and nod approvingly, pose a real and present threat to this country. Not even North Korean style ‘re-education’ is going to cure such twisted thinking.
There will always be well-intentioned do-gooders who’ll suggest that we cannot give in to fear or hate and that we must try and reach out to such people. But we are dealing with people who believe – and I mean REALLY believe – in paradise for the faithful and eternal conscious-torment-in-fire for unbelievers. No amount of well-intentioned do-goodery on the part of the state will move them from that position one inch. What rational, temporal argument could one put forward that would be seen to countermand a spiritual, holy mission, if that is what the jihadi believes his actions to be?
The only “reformed” Islamist I’m aware of is Majid Nawaz – though he came to the realisation himself, rather than being deradicalised by a kindly probation officer. I would suggest that if a man with such an obvious intellect, a man with such finely calibrated ethics, can be persuaded to the cause of Islamist extremism it only goes to show what an insidiously “attractive” ideology it can be if fed to a disaffected young man seeking answers.
So what can a Govt do with home-grown Jihadis? No civilised culture should condone indefinite detention but short of capital punishment what is the alternative? You cannot “solve” the problem of imprisoned Islamist extremists, you can only hope to contain it. And certainly you must separate them from the general prison population and young, disaffected prisoners who they would undoubtedly attempt to radicalise. Once inside a place like Whitemoor, which appears to have become a UK Jihadi finishing school, it would be safe to assume that any former inmate poses a real and ongoing threat to society.
To rehabilitate was memorably defined as “To invest again with dignity”, a noble aim, and one that in the long run saves the state money. Funding adequately to achieve this will pay for itself many times over. Most right minded people would believe in that as a general rule.
However, to equate such high-minded goals with our necessarily harsh treatment of Jihadis and Hate Preachers is entirely self-defeating. With ISIS fighters it would be better for all concerned if they were killed in battle – however we cannot simply murder those that are captured. With home-grown jihadis all we can do is arrest them and, in the majority of cases, hold them indefinitely and isolate them from ‘regular’ prisoners – because there’s no way you can expect to win in a situation where the state is trying to rehabilitate a petty offender whilst his cell-mate believes he is doing God’s work trying to turn him into a mass murderer.
superb!
Excellent. Every one of your words rings true.
Added to being radicalised is the high possibility that these people have a pathological disorder. I doubt there’s a reasonable cure or treatment for that.
“The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) was looking at proposals to drop the word ‘Islamist’ or ‘jihadi’ when describing attacks from individuals claiming Islam as their motive. Instead, they were seeking to replace these terms with “faith-claimed terrorism”, or “terrorists abusing religious motivations”
Presumably by the same logic so-called right wing terrorists will be reclassified as “terrorists abusing political motivations” and “political-claimed terrorism”. I can’t see many journalists abandon reference to right-wing terrorism when some angry mentally disturbed drugged up white youth shoots up a bunch of their classmates and teachers for such anodyne phrases.
”White supremacist” seems popular journalese. “Muslim supremacist” seems quite apt for most Muslim Terrorists.
If a peson, who is a Muslim, destroys a lab which is experimenting on animals because (s)he is an anti-vivisectionist, then this is not an Islamic terrorist act, it’s an animal rights terrorist act, but if the same person commits an act of violence against (say) a gay club because this violates the tenets of Islam then this is an Islamist terror act. Simple distinction I would say.
Brilliant stuff. Thank you for writing this.
The United Nothing will never, NEVER do anything to disrupt the status quo of blatant Islamic terror wherever it occurs. They will not condemn it, they will not sanction it. They won’t even write a strongly worded letter about it. This is a feckless organization. It is listless, has no purpose, does very little good, and occupies phenomenal real estate while US taxpayers fund the majority of it it’s bureaucratic nonsense that gets pumped out of it. It is a venue that allows the perceived grievances of lesser nations to collectively moan about how bad the US is while neglecting and being willfully blind to the blight they create in their own respective countries and their citizens.
Yes thanks for a thoughtful article. It was a good read, but it only serves to bolster my opinion that we would be a lot better off with no religions in this world than we are now.
I just think that their time is past, and that they do more harm than good. The sentence below just about sums up the conniving, twisted, sick thinking around all this…
“…This move garnered support from Islamist organisations who have claimed that it would mark a “milestone in undoing the harms the counter-terror apparatus has inflicted upon Muslim communities.”
I would argue the western world is currently in the grip of a more rigid and zealous faith than any time in the last hundred years. The fact that it doesn’t have a deity at the centre is no more an obstacle than it was for the adherents of Marx or Robespierre. The idea has been soundly tried, I’m afraid.
Yes – the Social Justice movement has many features of a religion – and the worst features.
Yes, I understand, and agree. But it is only the West. Therein lies hope I think. Cureently, we think we have nothing better to worry about that that nonsense. But I rather think that soon we will – and when the food starts to run low and the lights go dim, I expect that people will worry less about performative offence-taking and personal pronouns.
like we would be a lot better of with no electric cars… I actually mean that, but like your view, it is not going to happen.
Are you incapable of discriminating between the various faiths and their adherents? If I said that we would be better off without those that don’t have a religious faith, it would be equally dumb to tar all those who do not believe in any god or gods with the same brush. Please be a bit more discerning and intellectually astute when you throw out this kind of opinion. All religions are not equal.
ahhh JiHadis ’67.. a very fine Islamic port…
” … but it also places him in a position that NEITHER he, nor anyone else, can take, which is to declare what Islam is.”
The United Nothing will never, NEVER do anything to disrupt the status quo of blatant Islamic terror wherever it occurs. They will not condemn it, they will not sanction it. They won’t even write a strongly worded letter about it. This is a feckless organization. It is listless, has no purpose, does very little good, and occupies phenomenal real estate while US taxpayers fund the majority of it it’s bureaucratic nonsense that gets pumped out of it. It is a venue that allows the perceived grievances of lesser nations to collectively moan about how bad the US is while neglecting and being willfully blind to the blight they create in their own respective countries and their citizens.
I like the name Wasiq Wasiq. Is that like Durand Durand, of Barbarella fame, the Earth’s Last Great Dictator?
Ah yes, the endless fascination of names. For instance, what was going through the minds of Mr & Mrs Cross when they decided to give their new baby boy the name Christopher?
I believe they were confused by a gravitational tug of war between the Moon and New York City
UAE is rights, terrorism is just a tactic. Can be used by the weaker side like N Ireland, Palestine, Israel, Chechnya, in the west it’s mostly Islamic today.
States are usually the biggest terrorists. Remember the terrorist attack by the USA and its alliances on Iraq over the false WMD claims. That was an illegal invasion aka state terrorism.
Good point. Whatever the case against “Islamic Terrorism” – and there is a case to be made of course – anyone serious about addressing rising violence and the risk of all-out war in the world, acknowledgement of US/NATO/Western driven state-based terrorism and the imperially-minded dominance of Global South nations must form part of any solution framework. Fat chance! The self-serving citizens of the Moral West are so blind to the egregious behaviour of their leadership and other elites (“sure, they’re sociopathic – but at least they’re OUR sociopaths”) that there’s less and less point in engaging in serious discussion. Raise equivalent behaviour and/or hypocrisy and it’s dismissed as “whataboutism” – as if that means (or resolves) anything.
That Islamic extremism is a serious problem is beyond debate; that it arises from highly complex historical, political and cultural issues and must not be considered or addressed in isolation cannot be wished away.
Try and tell this to the hoardes of muppetts at airport security, who, if you quote the hi jacking factual statistics threaten to call Gestaplod and have one arrested for being ‘ herr fensyffe”…
…hordes …
ISIS is a clever and effective creation of the CIA, Mossad and the arab kings. It was created at the time the Arab spring was sweeping across North Africa and heading towards Israel and the self appointed Arab kings. Suddenly out of nowhere came a new theatrical group calling themselves ISIS. Arab spring was halted, the theatrical group was a success. It’s a pyramid scam with the masses within ISIS being dumb angry young muslims and a few top level architects taking thier instructions from USA, Israel and the kings.
Yes, but Father Christmas is a real person, because I have been told by the fairies ( lbgtq+ non gender specific) at the bottom of my garden, whilst preparing my magic carpet to fly to the planet Zarg…..
I’m sorry but this is bollocks and dangerous bollocks at that. Why don’t you just say Jews are to blame for everything wrong in the world and be done with it because that is what you really believe. This ISIS is a creation of the US and Israel crap is a dangerous deception. Have you actually read the myriad of interviews with the people that gave their lives for the cause – not a single one names Israel or the West, but they all name their belief in an Islamic caliphate.
So you are suggesting that the whole of the Islamic world is so dumb and weak that the majority of muslims do not realise that their lives and religion are manipulated by CIA and Mossad? Were Quran and Hadiths authored by Knights Templars? Was Mohammed an imposter planted by Byzantine Empire to mislead Arab tribes?