Kent State students did it in May of 1970 when President Richard
Nixon authorized the push into Cambodia.
UC Berkeley students did it throughout the 1960s for a variety
of reasons.
In fact, whether they are protests or sit-ins, many see the
freedom of expression as one of the cornerstones of university
life.
Students here at UCLA even joined forces in 1993 by refusing to
eat for 14 days when then Chancellor Charles E. Young refused to
create a Chicana/o studies department.
What some may not take into consideration, however, is that the
Supreme Court, as well as various federal courts, is integral in
shaping the rules that dictate academic freedom across college
campuses.
Historically, the Supreme Court has played a large role in
outlining the rules governing freedom of speech for K-12 education,
while lower courts have framed the general guidelines regarding
higher education, said UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh.
The case law of the lower courts has largely shown that students
on a university campus are as free to speak as they are out on the
streets.
“Whether they are in a cafeteria or in the quad … they
are generally free to speak without administrative sanction,”
Volokh said.
These guidelines were set out by the high court and influenced a
multitude of university speech policies, with the UC being no
exception.
“The university is committed to assuring that all persons
may exercise the constitutionally-protected rights of free
expression, speech, assembly, and worship,” UC policy
specifically states.
The insistence of the courts on fostering a wealth of opinion
and forms of expression on university campuses is one of the main
reasons students today can march to the dean’s office or
stage protests at the UC Board of Regents’ meetings.
Yet the idea of maintaining an extensive free speech policy on
college campuses was a tenet never fully agreed upon.
With the idea that academic progress could be hampered,
arguments have been made that racist, sexist, homophobic or
ethnically-demeaning language be banned on university campuses.
These arguments were countered in the late 1960s with Keyishian
v. Board of Regents of the University of New York, where the court
ruled that “the nation’s future depends upon leaders
trained through a wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas
which discovers “˜truth out of a multitude of
tongues.'”
The court’s rulings have thus reverberated throughout
society, allowing free speech in a variety of situations.