By Michael A. Bernstein
President, The College of New Jersey
“When is it enough?” The Signal asked in an editorial last week. How much free speech is too much? It’s an important question and it deserves a response.
The Signal’s editorial focused on hateful comments made last fall by participants (not all of whom were TCNJ students) in the GroupMe chat of a recognized student organization. Let me say up front that I found the comments to be abhorrent and wholly inconsistent with the College’s values. I believe the overwhelming majority of our community would agree, which may make the answer to the question posed by The Signal editors less than satisfying. Please let me explain.
The First Amendment to the Constitution imposes a high bar upon public institutions like TCNJ for taking formal action related to speech. It is not enough that the speech is offensive to others. The Supreme Court has explained that to be actionable, the conduct or speech must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectionably offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.”
Nevertheless, just because a school may not discipline students for engaging in obnoxious or offensive speech, does not mean it cannot take other actions, including denouncing the offending speech, providing support and resources to students and others who have been affected by it, and offering forums for the community to engage with alternative viewpoints. All of this, TCNJ can and does do.
The Signal isn’t the only organization that is paying attention to this case. The College has also heard from FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), an organization focused on defending free speech, which wrote in defense of one of the participants in the shameful group chat. The letter, however, notes that the First Amendment does not shield those who made the comments “from criticism by students, faculty, or the broader community. Criticism is a form of ‘more speech,’ the remedy to offensive expression the First Amendment prefers to censorship.”
While I understand the desire expressed in The Signal editorial piece to see disciplinary action taken in this matter, our obligations as a public institution of higher education necessitate caution and prudence in pursuing any steps that inappropriately infringe upon free speech rights. To my mind, The Signal is doing the best thing possible by writing about the contemptible behavior in question, condemning it, and making clear our community does not, will not, and will never embrace that kind of speech on our campus.
