So, does being a student give you a right to say whatever you want on campus?
Certain libertarian-minded student groups are recently teaming up with FIRE, (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), to bring Students Rights week to a college campus near you.
They advocate free campuses, and freedom of speech, individual liberty on campus, and yes, students rights. Students Rights week has a mixed guise of a libertarian rhetoric and U.S. Constitutionalesque feel to that many liberty-minded folk can immediately seem as warm and amenable, especially since it is being so heavily promoted in a week-long, nation-wide event by the same liberty-minded organization. I can attest that many of my fellow group members felt the same way about the event at first few glances. The week-long campaign includes delivering copies of the movie "Indoctrinate U" to libertarian groups everywhere, pocket U.S. Constitutions, free books and pamphlets courtesy of FIRE, manuals on how to engage Students Rights on their campuses! They even offer a list of expert speakers, sign-up sheets and marketing materials.
A few side notes about that movie before I advance: It's poorly made, loses focus often and has actually very little to do with actually liberty. Its inconsistent from top to bottom. It spends time focusing on affirmative action, and uses Ward Connerly being bashed at a campus as an example of anti-free speech. It seems to be beside the point that Ward isn't even a student. Then it actually shows liberal students at Columbia University voicing their opinions on campus against the affirmative action bake sale, and pushing for a progressive, multicultural change in front of the alma mater statue. It seems like freedom of speech was pretty open there, and no one denied the affirmative action people their protest. Affirmative action isn't even a real issue, its a misallocated issue that is the result of too public goods in society and government meddling!
It's a silly documentary that entirely misdirects the freedom movement with diluted perspectives on what freedom and liberty actually means. So geting onto the most important question at hand:
I've looked into FIRE, they aren't a libertarian organization whatsoever. I think they're using SFL as jumping bench to gain publicity if you want to be absolutely frank about it. I think their tactics are atrocious in doing so. They actually pursue court cases that will mandate freedom on campus from the demigods of a judicial bench? How does that qualify as freedom-like to private institutions?
Quote from the site:
"FIRE effectively and decisively defends American liberties on behalf of thousands of students and faculty on our nation's campuses. In case after case, FIRE brings about favorable resolutions for these individuals who continue to be challenged by those willing to deny fundamental rights and liberties within our institutions of higher education. In addition to individual case work, FIRE works nationally to inform the public about the fate of liberty on our campuses."
What does any of that even mean? Do students have a right to smoke pot on campus, because I consider that a fundamental right? American liberties on our nation's campuses? Perhaps they are mainly referring to public universities where the U.S. Constitution can be applied, but let us not get sucked away into the semantics and the adjectives and the ooohs and aahs of "defending American liberties".
Where in the Constitution is their even a provision that permits the federal government to provide block grants to public schools? The real question that should be postulated is the one that follows: Does government even supposed to have the moral legitimacy to tax, free American people, and set up a public college system with that money? The correct libertarian position would appear to me that public schools shouldn't even exist, much in the sameway libertarians find the post office, Medicaid and Amtrak inefficient and the result of misallocated tax dollars. and if so, funded and operated at the local school level. So why are we even defending the right to free speech on institutions that ethically speaking, libertarians and liberty-minded folk should be against? It seems to me like there are plenty more pressing issues at hand that libertarians should be more actively engaged in opposing then standing in a week-long coalition defending "students rights" to freedom of speech and individual liberties on publically subsidized campuses.
The overwhelming majority of private and public campuses actually permit their students to have freedom to voice their opinions, and even if they didn't, I don't see how that qualifies it as an issue? Private colleges are run by shareholders and a board of directors. They have a right to enact the standards they see fit because its private. There are plenty of Christian campuses and Jesuit run organizations that promote a socially conservative life style by not allowing secular bands and groups to exist on campus, not allowing certain articles to run in college newspapers and banning alcohol.
This is exactly one of the marginial benefits of why having a free market system means having the freedom to choose: because we can actually pick and choose what sort of environment we want to be in, whether its tolerant and diverse of thought like at Columbia University, where the Office of Multicultural Affairs runs a variety of multicultural programs each semester, or more moderate, conservative campuses that restrict the consumption of alcohol like Liberty University or others that separate male and females in residence halls like at Fordham University. This is certainly a far more desirable alternative then the one size fits all of public colleges that spend more time arguing for these "positive" rights in the Supreme Court than actually educating. These are examples of what Students for Liberty as an organization should be playing up and highlighting, the virtues and empirical evidence that freedom and markets work, and governments don't. By allying themselves with FIRE, they hurt potential friends by alienating campuses that are not so friendly to diversity of though, but are indeed libertarian-minded, like Grove City College, which was founded extolling the principles and ideals of a free American society, and openly states on its mission statement an anti-FIRE policy, "...while many points of view are examined, the College unapologetically advocates preservation of America's religious, political, and economic heritage of individual freedom and responsibility...", they certainly have a free-minded heritage in liberty that would be of most benefit to SFL.
Furthermore, I don't see what's the net gain in SFL being allied with an organization that's effectively promoting what could be construed as an activist Leftist agenda. The problem that many libertarians mistake coming so quickly to support other pro-freedom movements, arises from confusions in the word "freedom". The word "freedom", often takes a variety of positions in everday life, like the "freedom-to-hang out" that an adolescent living under household rules earns after completing their chores. FIRE definitely has the "freedom"-like ring to it that so many civil libertarians adore, but that doesn't actually extend to society, much in the same fashion that the government can't extend the 1st Amendment into your house.
All of our natural rights, are indeed derived from property rights. You don't have a "right to freedom of speech", you have a write to start a newspaper publication and write as many op-eds as you want. You have a right to rent out an auditorium, and bash the New York Mets for being a lousy baseball team. Property rights are the crux of liberalism, and the axiom from which all other rights are derived. Ludwig von Mises treatise on liberalism starts with private property as the basis for a classic liberal society. A civilization based on peace and freedom between individuals coexisting in a market economy where the social system of the division of labor is under private ownership of the means of production. Here's an excerpt from "Liberalism":
"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."
If we were to support everything that was free, then that would probably have us "libertarians" supporting proposals like "free healthcare" and "freedom from racial discrimination"? I'd argue that most modern-day, lower case "liberals" actually do have a distorted perversion of what freedom actually means. The following is the essay that shattered any preconceptions I had about libertarianism and flushed out most of the misconcepts I had remaining from my Marxist, pro-government days, which I have called, "the Early Days". Here, I quote Congressman Ron Paul, in the finest essay I have ever read:
"George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?... Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If
nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word."
Why don't we just support free everything then? I believe, that having FIRE in a free-market society, would act as a consumer protection group, or an advisory board that would make policy reccommendations for campuses across America, much in the same way we have hundreds of magazines, institutes & consumer product committees that try out and test vehicles and consumer goods and issue reviews and commentaries on them. While I support a free environment on campuses personally, I don't see that as a role for a libertarian/freedom movement oriented group to be in league with.
I'm sorry, but I know that organizations such as SFL are still starting out, but I don't feel that they have to resort to being the jumping pad for the propoganda of Student Rights organization. Students for Liberty is an excellant organization, that is well-run, and is increasing in numbers, but I feel that by highlighting certain rights, we dilute the core message of liberty, and misdirects the intentions that an an organization of this nature is supposed to be for. I think I'm bringing up more than reasonable objections to libertarian organizations that have noble intentions and excellant prospect in exerting greater influence across campuses.
Call it intransigence, I call it being principled.
Stay free, America. More than just the world is watching.
Disclaimer: This commentary does not necessarily represent the position taken by any of members of the Executive Board or the Board of Directors of SFL.
I like the way you question even the "liberty" authority. Not many do that. Everyone assumes that they are right about everything.
ReplyDeleteVery critical, very nice.
Your argument that we should not fight for free speech on public campuses just because these public campuses shouldn't exist in the first place seems rather obtuse. Should we not fight for an audit of the Federal Reserve just because the Federal Reserve should not exist?
ReplyDeleteWe cannot, in one move, cure the ills that have risen in our society. Taking "small steps", amongst which are fighting for civil liberties to be maintained in any publicly owned facility, even though that facility should not exist in the first place, and auditing the Federal Reserve, even though that body should not exist in the first place, seems to be the method that a wide majority of libertarians and libertarian bodies are pursuing.
When you state "you don't have a right to freedom of speech, you have a right to start a newspaper publication...", it seems like you are claiming positive rights, which I could have sworn you would have not supported. Indeed, I don't have a "right to start a newspaper", more appropriately, YOU don't have a right to stop me. And as you don't have that right, you cannot pass it along to your representative in Congress.
ReplyDeleteWhile property rights are incredibly important, they are not the basis for all things libertarian, nor all my rights. My right to defend my life has nothing to do with property, for example.
Person who commented first, I just checked my Facebook account and I still don't know who you are.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't really say there is a liberty "authority" as much as there are more principled libertarians then others...
As for Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, next time you use the word "obtuse", why don't you implement as a means of checking how principled your libertarian ethic actually is. I'm taking a principled approach that I've adopted from a natural-rights ethic. I'd suggest you read into Professor Hoppe's, or Dr. Rothbard's for a deeper understanding of what libertarianism actually is, instead of immediately jumping on semantics.
ReplyDeleteYou've completely mischaracterized my position.
"Should we not fight for an audit of the Federal Reserve just because the Federal Reserve should not exist?"
You aren't being logically consistent here so I don't see your point. Maybe you shouldn't give such an obtuse example. Auditing the Federal Reserve is the means to an end, a step towards the ultimate goal, which is to abolish the Fed. Auditing the Federal Reserve, is a shrewd campaign devised by principled libertarians that has created a partisan coalition with a common sensical approach to reach closer to our end. Auditing the Fed, will bring about accountability and transparency. When the public sees what the Federal Reserve conducts behind their seal, it will outrage them, there is no disputing this.
So what's your point?
When you defend freedom of speech on private & public campuses, that has nothing to do with defending liberty in society, in fact, you are distorting the ultimate end, that would be a freer society. In fact, in order for your position to be viable and not so obtuse, if you defend freedom of speech on private campuses, then why can't others defend freedom of speech in private households, or public secondary schools, or privately run radio talk shows.
Furthermore, to make my point redundant, if you defend freedom of speech on universities, you're mixing the means with the ends. The means should not contradict, or undercut the ultimate objective. That's what libertarians that support freedom of speech on public campuses do.
***When you state "you don't have a right to freedom of speech, you have a right to start a newspaper publication...", it seems like you are claiming positive rights, which I could have sworn you would have not supported. Indeed, I don't have a "right to start a newspaper", more appropriately, YOU don't have a right to stop me. And as you don't have that right, you cannot pass it along to your representative in Congress.***
ReplyDeleteYou're the one that is defending positive rights when you support freedom of speech on a public university.
I wasn't supporting positive rights, that was merely a misunderstanding of text. That example was illustratating that you have a right to go and start a newspaper. I don't think I had to add the economic situation that an individual would have to be in order to do so.
***While property rights are incredibly important, they are not the basis for all things libertarian, nor all my rights. My right to defend my life has nothing to do with property, for example.***
You really are not making any type of sense here. It's a bad situation to try and reducate a Rothbardian on property rights.
If you defend your life, you're logically implying that you have ownership over your physical body, and that by defining yourself as the owner of your body, you are asserting property rights to your body. You don't go and ask your parents, or your wife, or the local police if you have a right or for permission to defend your life. That would be absurd.
You've seriously never heard of the concept of self-ownership? Natural rights? John Locke? Homesteading?
Perhaps, now you've proven my point on why, libertarianism as a whole, is diluted when you focus on "student rights".
"When you defend freedom of speech on private & public campuses, that has nothing to do with defending liberty in society, in fact, you are distorting the ultimate end, that would be a freer society. In fact, in order for your position to be viable and not so obtuse, if you defend freedom of speech on private campuses, then why can't others defend freedom of speech in private households, or public secondary schools, or privately run radio talk shows. "
ReplyDeleteThey certainly can, and they should. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with desiring that freedom of speech should exist in all areas, so long as you don't use the legislature to enforce your desire. I happen to believe that college campuses should allow all forms of speech, because doing so promotes a freer society. With public schools there is an authority to accomplish this with the legislature. With private schools, while you cannot force them to promote free discourse with government, you can do so with your checkbook, and with the media. I, may, as a parent, advise my child to look at FIRE's school rankings, and my child may base their decision on which school to attend on those rankings. There is nothing "un"libertarian about doing so.
As to the comparison with the Federal Reserve, my point was simply that we do not move to abolish the Federal Reserve as the first step. We are first trying to make the Federal Reserve better by giving Congress the power to audit it. A push to abolish the Federal Reserve right now would fail massively, as it has done every other time Paul has tried for it. Similarly, a push to abolish public universities would fail miserably, and so instead, we take small steps to improve them.
Again, I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment on holding any private institution accountable. I'm all for freedom of thought on campuses, and I think the heavy, overwhelming majority of private universities do indeed allow diversity of thought and the right to discourse, engage in political activity and even start up a variety of student clubs.
ReplyDeleteAs for your point on the Federal Reserve, amen to that, you're absolutely right, and I am pretty sure I made it clear with my previous response that I was in full agreement with regards to a pragmatic approach to public policy...