"Free speech is indispensable on college campuses, essential to learning and the pursuit of truth. But free speech does not mean a free-for-all. A university that values free expression still has to regulate some speech to enable its educational mission. So how can we distinguish reasonable restrictions from impermissible infringement? In this clear-headed, no-nonsense explainer, Cass Sunstein takes us briskly through a wide range of scenarios involving students, professors, and administrators. He shows, for instance, why it's consistent with the First Amendment to punish students who shout down a speaker, but not those who chant offensive slogans; why a professor cannot be fired for writing controversial op-eds, yet an applicant's political views can be considered in hiring decisions. And he explains why private universities, though not legally bound by the First Amendment, would be well advised in most cases to follow it nonetheless." --

As a community of engaged scholars and learners, we are committed to freedom of expression, academic freedom, and collaborative inquiry. We support creativity and innovation by valuing all voices and engaging in respectful discourse. While we may not always agree with the ideas and opinions of others, we must honor their right to express them. Please explore and utilize this website as a resource. If you have questions or concerns regarding First Amendment activities, or for rally or protest planning assistance, please contact the Dean of Students Office at 520-621-7057.

An even-handed exploration of the polarized state of campus politics that suggests ways for schools and universities to encourage discourse across difference. College campuses have become flashpoints of the current culture war and, consequently, much ink has been spilled over the relationship between universities and the cultivation or coddling of young American minds. Philosopher Sigal R. Ben-Porath takes head-on arguments that infantilize students who speak out against violent and racist discourse on campus or rehash interpretations of the First Amendment. Ben-Porath sets out to demonstrate the role of the university in American society and, specifically, how it can model free speech in ways that promote democratic ideals. In Cancel Wars, she argues that the escalating struggles over “cancel culture,” “safe spaces,” and free speech on campus are a manifestation of broader democratic erosion in the United States. At the same time, she takes a nuanced approach to the legitimate claims of harm put forward by those who are targeted by hate speech. Ben-Porath’s focus on the boundaries of acceptable speech (and on the disproportional impact that hate speech has on marginalized groups) sheds light on the responsibility of institutions to respond to extreme speech in ways that proactively establish conversations across difference. Establishing these conversations has profound implications for political discourse beyond the boundaries of collegiate institutions. If we can draw on the truth, expertise, and reliable sources of information that are within the work of academic institutions, we might harness the shared construction of knowledge that takes place at schools, colleges, and universities against truth decay. Of interest to teachers and school leaders, this book shows that by expanding and disseminating knowledge, universities can help rekindle the civic trust that is necessary for revitalizing democracy.

"This book argues that hate speech is not protected. Based on an examination of Supreme Court case law and First Amendment theory, the book finds that hate speech lies outside the Supreme Court's hierarchy of speech protection because it advances no ideas of social value"--;"Hate speech has been a societal problem for many years and has seen a resurgence recently alongside political divisiveness and technologies that ease and accelerate the spread of messages. Methods to protect individuals and groups from hate speech have eluded lawmakers as the call for restrictions or bans on such speech are confronted by claims of First Amendment protection. Problematic speech, the argument goes, should be confronted by more speech rather than by restriction. Debate over the extent of First Amendment protection is based on two bodies of law--the practical, precedent determined by the Supreme Court, and the theoretical framework of First Amendment jurisprudence. In Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against Constitutional Protection, W. Wat Hopkins argues that the prevailing thought that hate is protected by both case law and theory is incorrect. Within the Supreme Court's established hierarchy of speech protection, hate speech falls to the lowest level, deserving no protection as it does not advance ideas containing social value. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's cases addressing protected and unprotected speech set forth a clear rationale for excommunicating hate speech from First Amendment protection." --

"The objective of this edited volume is to shed light upon K-12 perspectives of various school stakeholders in the current unique context of increasing political polarization and heightened teacher and student activism. It is grounded in academic freedom case law and the majority of opinion of the Supreme Court in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that held that certain forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. Justice Fortas wrote in the majority opinion that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This volume is timely and instructive, as protections afforded by the First Amendment are a topic of enduring concern, with such freedoms requiring vigilant advocacy and protection from each generation. Paulo Freire stated, "Citizenship is not obtained by chance: It is a construction that, never finished, demands we fight for it" (1998, p. 90). There is confusion and much debate in and outside of schools about how and when these and other rights described in the First Amendment may or may not be limited, and the time is now to clarify the place of such rights in public education. At the Schoolhouse Gate is divided into three sections: Foundations, Case Studies of Rights in Schools, and Choices to Act. The "Foundations" section presents the case law pertaining to the rights of both teachers and students, setting the tone for what presently is permissible and chronicling the ongoing struggle with defining rights and responsibilities in schools. In "Case Studies of Rights in Schools," various authors examine teacher and student interactions with rights and responsibilities in schools, including the interest of students in participating with their teachers in the democratic experiment of schooling, the promise of student-led conferences, a new teacher's success with democratizing her classroom, and student views of news and technology. "Choices to Act" includes a portrait of teacher activism during the Oklahoma Walkout, a general counsel's advice to teachers for availing themselves of their rights, a story of a civic education curriculum generating student agency, and vignettes of two public high school students who took action in their schools and communities"--