More than a year after the events of October 7th, public university administrations have struggled to make progress on the Israel-Palestine question. Not only has the general American public been at odds over what has transpired and its contentious history, but university campuses seem to have become a focal point for disagreement. Debates surrounding freedom of speech and civil discourse have proliferated in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, leaving many to question how these ideals will be considered on public university campuses.  

The already challenging situation is made even more complex with a spike in both antisemitism and Islamophobia nation-wide (ADL, 2023; CAIR, 2023). More than 60 colleges and universities are under federal investigation for alleged instances antisemitism and islamophobia, while university administrations try to alleviate concerns over free speech and civil dialogue (Montague, 2024). And students have found little relief. A survey led this year by Dr. Neil Gross, the Charles A. Dana Professor of Sociology at Colby College, found that 40% of students did not agree with how administration responded to protests, contrasted with 26% who did. In the majority, student perception of attempts made by administrations to foster civil discourse and protect free speech have been skeptical.  

Although a seemingly easy thing to understand at face value, freedom of speech quickly becomes a complex and multifaceted issue. For these purposes, we will understand freedom of speech as “the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government,” which extends to public campuses (Legal Information Institute, 2024). Offensive words or phrases, those considered “hate speech,” are also protected (Cohen v. California, 1971). However, if any speech is used to incite the violation of laws while directed at an individual or group, it is not permitted (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).  

Unlike private universities, public universities fall under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment. Here at Ohio State, the university’s policy on campus free speech espouses its commitment to “free speech and academic freedom,” regardless of if it is thought to be offensive or indecent. However, Ohio State notes that any harassment or action that makes anyone feel unwelcome is unacceptable. Ohio State’s policy on free speech and academic freedom can be found at freedomofexpression.osu.edu.  

Other public universities seem to trend the same. At the University of California, Los Angeles, the administration cites its status as a public university under the protections of the First Amendment to protect speech and academic freedom regardless if it is seen as “offensive or hateful” (UCLA, 2024). Universities such as the University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and University of Florida all aim to adhere to First Amendment protections and promote academic freedom as well. With these principles enshrined, pro-Palestinian protests would seem to be protected. Yet this matter has left many of us asking "why, in that case, do so many students seem to be in conflict with their administrations?"  

Part of the recent intolerance may be that, in general, people are becoming less accepting of free speech. More specifically, less accepting of the “hate speech” that the First Amendment protects. A survey conducted by the Freedom Forum this year found that only 61% of people agreed that “college campuses should foster a free exchange of ideas, even if they are offensive,” an eight percent decrease from the previous year. Furthermore, the data found that Gen Z was less likely to agree–an important distinction, considering that they make up a majority of the college population. To the college crowd, free speech seems to become an even more contentious issue regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.  

Mark Yudof, a former president of the University of California system, recently said in an interview with the Associated Press that “The faculty are at odds with each other. The student body is at odds with each other. There’s a war of ideologies going on.” This deep chasm between not only the students and faculty, but the student body themselves, presents itself as a significant challenge to tolerance and civil discourse. For protesters, many feel that their stance on the conflict makes them a target by their administrations. In the same interview, Bryce Greene, a doctoral student at Indiana University, expresses a view that new policies placing curfews on protests and assemblies are intended to produce a chilling effect that will “restrict people from speaking out for Palestine.”  

Many public universities have reserved the right to curtail protests and demonstrations. Back in April, an attempted encampment at OSU was shut down by the Ohio State University Police Division in which a handful of student protesters were arrested. (Szilagy, 2024). As a form of expression, an encampment acts to convey a message of protest through its distracting nature. Many protesters pursue encampments to increase attention and apply pressure on institutions (Commons Librarian, 2024). Ohio State affirms the right to free speech while at the same time officially maintaining that enforcement of university space rules is also necessary (Carter, 2024).  How much disruption must be allowed remains a debate. 

Over at Indiana University, the Board of Trustees expanded restrictions on “expressive activity” and doubled down on those limitations despite uproar from faculty and students in the wake of the use of Indiana state troopers to arrest protesters (Quinn, 2024). Both universities’ actions demonstrated a zero-tolerance policy towards what they consider to be overly disruptive behavior that many viewed as excessive. University actions have sent a message that many students interpret as invalidating and dismissive despite official statements about a commitment to free speech and academic freedom. 

The state of civil discourse on U.S. campuses seems more challenging than ever but there is hope. Ohio State’s “Civil Discourse for Citizenship” initiative includes a free online course for civil discourse, a certificate program for students, and dialogue facilitation exercises. Indiana University, through its Political and Civic Engagement program (PACE), houses Voices for Democracy and Constructive Conversation (VDCC), focusing on public deliberation, conflict management, and active listening. Other public universities have similar programs as well. The Berkeley Forum at UC Berkeley, a student-run organization, aims to promote discourse by hosting a variety of experts in different fields. The National Institute for Civil Discourse, founded at the University of Arizona in 2011, is dedicated to promoting civil dialogue and engaging individuals with different values.  

Regardless of the attempts made, it’s clear that external factors affect attempts at civil discourse. Most notably, social media has had a significant influence on discourse by increasing echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. While epistemic bubbles are groups in which other viewpoints are not heard (not on purpose), echo chambers are noted by their intentional exclusion of voices and distrust of other sources (Nguyen, 2020). The negative effects are stark–they can reinforce availability and confirmation biases, reduce critical thinking, increase polarization, and negate attempts at deliberative democracy (Turner, 2023).  

Social media algorithms are created to cater towards an individual’s interests. Posts are shown on the basis of relevancy and how likely someone is to engage, which means that the more an individual interacts with certain posts, the more the algorithm pushes similar content (Golino, 2021). This algorithmic structure enables epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, both of which are detrimental to civil discourse. If one finds themselves unaware of other viewpoints, or actively finds themselves indiscriminately shunning opinions other than their own, the conversation is ultimately stifled and progress cannot be made.  

Civil discourse has always been a unique challenge. To some, it means that conflict surrounding an issue must be tiptoed around. However, when executed correctly, civil discourse enables participants and communities to better understand their fundamental and surface-level disagreements. On public university campuses and beyond, the conflict in Israel and Palestine has raised questions surrounding the effectiveness of civil discourse and the enumerated right to free speech. Although a myriad of campuses have attempted to address and quell these tensions, student reactions seem to indicate that there is much more work to be done. 

Join us tomorrow on November 15^th for a chance to engage in this topic civilly and with academic standards as part of the Center for Ethics and Human Values’ Civil Discourse program. In this forum--‘Is a Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Still Viable?’--join Dr. Ian Lustick (University of Pennsylvania) and Dr. Hussein Ibish (Arab Gulf States Institute) as they present differing perspectives on these questions. This forum will be held in room 165 of Thompson Library from 11:15 AM-12:45 PM.  

References: