The escalating protests on college campuses across the United States and the responses of universities and public officials are raising questions about the conditions for “orderly freedom.” This concept, coined by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo nearly a century ago, states that for social life to be possible, even constitutionally protected freedoms must be restricted by law. It refers to the reality that something must happen. In this case, the students’ right to freedom of expression to protest Israel’s treatment of Palestinians goes against the university’s core functions of teaching, learning, and research, as well as the physical safety of Jewish students.
The substantive question of where to draw the line is complex, accompanied by the equally difficult question of who actually draws the line. Our answers will define what kind of democracy we are and what kind of higher education system we have.
Many of the demands to eliminate the pro-Palestinian camp come from politicians who identify as conservatives. And, sure enough, the conservative intellectual tradition has a lot to offer about the relationship between order and freedom. But it is by no means a direct endorsement of calls to close camps, especially when they come from powerful officials in Washington.
To be clear, you don’t have to identify as a conservative to derive valuable insights from conservative thought. The organization I lead, Public Agenda, is dedicated to democracy where all voices are heard. That’s because we believe that, under the right circumstances, citizens and policymakers can learn from each other, revise their views, and make better decisions through public conversation.
Perhaps the typical approach of conservatism is that we should not casually damage or abandon the systems and organizations that have been built over many years through the efforts of many people. This view, articulated by the 18th century statesman and writer Edmund Burke, was that most of what is good and valuable in the lives of individuals and communities is determined not by laws imposed by governments but by their cooperation. It is based on the recognition that it is brought about by what we have built. ourselves and each other – faith communities, civic organizations, schools, museums, athletic clubs, and more.
Universities in the United States have been built over the centuries by diverse communities pursuing a myriad of goals, including education, moral and spiritual advancement, artistic excellence, and economic advancement. They’re not perfect, but they’ve been an important part of this country’s success throughout history. When elected officials like Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik interfere in the operations of universities in ways that heighten tensions and often disrupt them, they undermine the lives of the generations of Americans who founded them, and the current and modern Americans. Future people who will benefit from them.
Stefanik called for the Biden administration to revoke federal funding to Columbia University for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students. However, such efforts to intimidate university presidents into taking actions that are not in the best interest of students or their institutions are damaging to universities, such as educational gag orders passed by several Republican state legislatures and irresponsible claims. should be viewed in conjunction with other efforts to give. , in the face of ample empirical evidence that a university education is no longer worth it. From a conservative point of view, the most dangerous trait in a politician is the recklessness to undermine long-standing institutions in pursuit of short-term political gain.
Another prominent conservative, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, argues that as more people work for or are regulated by the government, officials are using their power to control the public and the leaders of private organizations. He argued that he would be tempted to blackmail the public into silence. And even if we generally support the goal of expanded government power, he believed we should all pause.
Congressman Virginia Foxx said that Republicansplease take back our university”, I can’t help but wonder why she thinks that universities in this country, especially private universities, have traditionally belonged to members of Congress. Witnessing Colombian President Minouche Shafik making real-time executive decisions resembling a hazing ritual during a parliamentary hearing should send a chill down the spine of anyone who believes in limited government.
In recent years, many conservative commentators have argued persuasively that universities are too aggressive in restricting speech deemed potentially harmful to others, especially speech targeted at identity groups. ing. Commentators have argued that freedom of expression should be protected even if the ideas expressed are deeply offensive, and university leaders are taking these arguments seriously. They aim to recalibrate in the direction of more free expression, while also taking active steps to help students engage constructively with peers with whom they disagree.
Striking the right balance is difficult, especially in rapidly evolving situations where the facts themselves are at stake. But while we should unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism, politicians in Washington have made certain statements made on campuses hundreds or even thousands of miles away that are legitimate expressions of expression and threats that are prohibited. It is clear that he is not the right person to judge whether this is the case.
And if university leaders bow to political pressure and order a forceful suppression of protests, we will see not only the denial of individual rights, but the consequences for a university that has served our country for centuries. We should also be concerned about damage.
Andrew J. Seligsohn is a political scientist and chairman of Public Agenda.
