Campus Protests: Free Speech Needs Order
Hot takes of the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel demonstrations on our college campuses quickly became common. But those with enough legal and historical context to properly assess the situation have been rare.
Some observers and participants wishfully called the protests a “Student Spring.” Others saw them as practice for the Democratic National Convention. Still others noted the broader anti-capitalist, anti-America rhetoric at some protests, and they suggested activists are ambitiously preparing to smash America in a socialist revolution.
Some protests have been peaceful and rule-abiding or, as at the University of Chicago, close enough to be tolerated for a time. (The Chicago activists’ demands came to include a call for disbanding the campus police and “decarbonizing the endowment.”) In contrast, the encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, became increasingly violent, and “professional agitators” appear to have aggravated tension on many campuses.
The environment for Jewish students at many colleges and universities has degenerated into hostility since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks inspired protesters who caused Cooper Union students to be barricaded in a library for their safety. Students have been assaulted. Police action has been required.
Violence, property damage and land takeovers by protesters are plainly inconsistent with respect for the rights of others. Coercive tactics have no place in institutions dedicated to the powers of reason and persuasion. Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., champions of civil disobedience, acknowledged that nonviolent disobedience still requires appropriate discipline in a society that respects the rule of law. Today’s legacy is not theirs.
And some universities’ reactions against the protests might have gone too far, especially regarding protected speech. The right of expression on matters of vital international concern is sacrosanct.
America’s tradition of free speech ought to be the envy of the world. But recent events again remind us that it can thrive only in the context of an ordered society.
The free-speech scholar Thomas Emerson envisioned our tradition as a “system of free expression,” by which he meant that speakers, listeners and authorities have reciprocal rights and duties that ensure the rights of everyone—including protection of what Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called “the thought that we hate.”
This system cannot prevail without the lawful order that protects all speakers—protesters and their critics—against being canceled, shouted down, coerced or attacked.
Alexander Meiklejohn, the great free-speech philosopher and educator who was one of the first to speak up against McCarthyism, wrote similarly that “to be afraid of an idea, any idea, is to be unfit for self-government.” He later wrote: “Political freedom does not mean freedom from control. It means self-control.”
Meiklejohn’s elaboration on the classic concept of “ordered liberty” contrasts with the mob rule of too many of today’s protesters. Protest is itself bounded by constitutional limits protecting the rights of others. When power replaces persuasion, freedom and society deteriorate.
While campus authorities are finally hearing the call for ordered liberty, many of them contributed to its precariousness in recent decades. Universities’ well-documented double standards have restricted and punished open inquiry as well as rule-abiding campus dissent.
Colleges and their diversity, equity and inclusion staff have enacted speech codes, Orwellian anonymous complaint programs, “bias incident” protocols, runaway DEI indoctrination and enforcement, and toleration of heckler’s vetoes and speech cancellations ad nauseam that have smothered free inquiry from within.
Many have also fostered an ideology pitting identity and other groups against one another. In so doing, they at least implicitly encouraged the misbegotten belief that duly constituted laws and rules should be differentially applied and should not stand in the way of favored political causes. This belief took root on campuses in the unrest of the 1960s, and it has spread in the decades since.
The Atlantic’s George Packer traces such betrayal to the famous five-building occupation of Columbia by students in 1968. A year later, one of us was at Cornell when students took over the student center with 20 rifles, then escaped punishment. It was no accident that Cornell’s leaders had previously elevated the promotion of social change to the top tier of its mission and vision, competing with the duty to educate and to teach students how to think.
An inevitable consequence of failing society in this manner is that society will push back.
Universities have squandered the institutional autonomy they used to deserve. State and federal legislators from the right, and internal activists from the left, who exploit campus leaders’ weaknesses—often greatly assisted by outside groups and funding—are, sometimes literally, shaking down the campus gates. Too many colleges have been losing control over their own destiny, from both without and within.
Higher education was in crisis long before Oct. 7. It will continue to be so until its leaders and students restore the dual commitment to the free inquiry and ordered liberty that makes freedom on campus—and for all of us—possible.
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/campus-protests-free-speech-needs-order-too
**************************************************Against the Latest Student-Loan “Forgiveness” Scheme
The Martin Center opposes the Biden administration’s new loan-forgiveness rules for two basic reasons: They are outside of the Department of Education’s authority, and they will have adverse consequences.
Legal Authority
Economists often refer to special-interest legislation—bills passed to favor some politically influential group with benefits extracted from society in general. The nation’s Founders were well aware of that prospect and sought to prevent it in their writing of the Constitution. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote about the evils that arise when “factions” can use governmental power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. The Constitution’s limitations on and division of federal authority were adopted to head off that problem.
The proposed loan-forgiveness “rules” clearly amount to the making of new law by unelected bureaucrats.
In the Department’s proposed student-loan regulations, we have something even worse than special interest legislation, namely special interest regulation. We say this is worse because, with legislation, it is at least possible to vote out of office those who passed the odious bill and replace them with representatives more committed to the general welfare. With regulations decreed by unelected bureaucrats, that possibility does not exist.
The Founders sought to minimize the chances for special-interest legislation by drawing a line between the legislative and executive branches. Only the former was authorized to make laws, and then only within strictly defined boundaries. The executive branch was given the authority to enforce duly enacted laws. The proposed rules, however, clearly amount to the making of new law.
Even if it were within the purview of Congress to pass a law relieving certain individuals of their obligation to repay debts owed to the government, it is not permissible for an agency of the executive branch to do so. (We say “even if” because the Constitution confers no authority on any branch of the federal government to lend money. While Article II covers the power to spend in detail, the Constitution is silent as to any power to lend. Had the Founders wanted to include such power, they would have said so and set forth rules for it. They did not.)
In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken an interest in abuses of authority by executive-branch agencies. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the Court ruled that “major questions” of public policy have to be decided by Congress, not by agencies. We maintain that the new rules on student-loan repayments are of such importance that they constitute “major questions” and therefore cannot be implemented by agency rules.
The Department of Education is no more able to waive student-debt payments that are owed to the government than it or any other executive-branch agency could waive taxes for select groups. The power of the purse belongs to Congress, and the Education Department cannot forgive billions of dollars owed by student debtors. This transparently political action constitutes another assault on the concept of representative democracy.
Adverse Consequences
Turning to the substance of the rules, we find them equally objectionable.
One proposal is to waive all interest accrued for student debtors up to $20,000. Since many student debtors with accrued interest are able to continue paying down their balances, this amounts to nothing more than a gift to successful people, at the expense of many Americans who never borrowed for college or who paid back their debts. Such vicarious generosity is plainly unfair.
No legitimate public-policy goal is furthered by this gift.FacebookTwitterEmailPrintShareAnother proposal would forgive debt balances for student borrowers who have been paying on their loans for 20 years. Again, many of those individuals are successful and quite able to continue paying back their loans. No legitimate public-policy goal is furthered by this gift.
Another proposal allows the secretary of education to forgive student debts where the borrowers are “experiencing hardship.” This vague provision would be unjustified even if it applied only to individuals on the verge of default, since paying the costs of poor borrowing decisions is a part of adult life. There is no policy reason why poor educational borrowing should be singled out. But this open-ended power in the Department is apt to be used to reward more and more borrowers who can’t easily repay what they owe.
Another proposal would automatically enroll all borrowers in the government’s income-driven repayment (IDR) program whether they have applied or not. The IDR rules are so extremely favorable that they amount to virtually free college for many individuals who will earn moderate incomes. Automatically enrolling every borrower will mean that more Americans who choose to borrow for college will be able to slough off most of their cost onto the taxpayers.
That exacerbates the serious disadvantages of these easy IDR plans.
One disadvantage is that students will be less cost-conscious than otherwise, knowing that they won’t have to worry about their college costs. Some will undoubtedly borrow more heavily to afford a more pricey school and lavish lifestyle than they would if they knew their choices would come at their own expense. Milton Friedman’s line that no one spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own applies here.
Another disadvantage is that colleges and universities will have less incentive to minimize their costs, knowing that more and more students will be counting on a largely free education.
In sum, these proposed rules will do nothing to encourage students or schools to be cost-conscious, thus ensuring that still more borrowers in the future will be clamoring for relief from the government when their educational “investments” don’t turn out well.
https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/05/against-the-latest-student-loan-forgiveness-scheme-testimony/
*************************************************Trade qualifications offer a better future than most university qualifications
It’s a question parents often ponder when considering their children’s education: what skills are required now to deliver job security in the future?
This is a bit like wondering what jobs might be needed in 2024 from the vantage point of the year 2000. The answer is nearly all skills and ever more workers are required today.
This is because at the turn of the century we didn’t envisage record levels of immigration triggered by a resources boom and the delivery of education services – at scale – to overseas students. Our cities surged as a consequence. More accommodation was required for students as well as a burgeoning bulge of Millennial knowledge workers.
No one connected the dots: more students, more knowledge workers and more (skilled) migrants results in a need for more housing. If this is to be Australia’s trajectory, we need the trade skills to deliver housing and city infrastructure.
In 2000 we did not question the logic of trade routes based on unfettered access to global supply chains. And, seemingly, nor did we consider the idea of buying and/or building nuclear-powered submarines. A pity, because such a project over the past 20 years could have deepened an engineering skills base aligned with the needs of a resources boom.
We need to be bold and lateral in our thinking about the future. I suspect we have followed a line of “safe future thinking” largely based on issues such as climate change and not enough on left-field events like a pandemic or a seismic shift in our strategic position.
Australians need to have confidence that someone, somewhere, is thinking about – is scenario planning, and actively war-gaming – a range of impacts that could shape our nation. It’s not enough to say “Oh, this is unexpected.”
What does Australia look like by the middle of the 2030s, when half of the Baby Boomer cohort is 80-plus? A decade of post-pandemic amped-up immigration, required to offset retiring workers, changes Australia.
We are focusing on the ramifications of artificial intelligence (AI) rather than scoping the need for jobs of the future. In the early 2030s we will need vastly more aged/disability carers, to the extent that this could replace shop assistant as this nation’s largest single occupation.
I have a contrarian view of the future of work: less focus on tech wizardry, more attention on delivery of basic human needs, such as security, care and shelter.
Repetitive jobs will continue to be replaced by technology. Petrol-pump attendants and ticket sellers disappeared a generation ago. Checkout operators are shrinking.
If Australia is to grow, defend itself, house its people and care for its aged, we need to allow a greater role to be played by those who deliver vocational training. The past 25 years have been the era of the university and knowledge worker (and the hipster); maybe the next 25 will be the era of the trade college and technical worker (the tradie).
This shift could start with parents being as supportive of their child choosing to pursue an apprenticeship or trade certificate as a university degree. I see an even greater need for technical skills in an Australia of the future.
******************************************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************