It's graduation time, which means graduation speakers, which means controversy about graduation speakers, which means inevitable claims that protest against graduation speakers somehow implicates the right of free speech. The example that provoked this post is here (Open Season on Free Speech), but its brothers and sisters are legion.
The fact is that despite the yearly infliction of such lamentations, there is no free speech issue here, either legally or philosophically. As a legal matter we are protected from government infringement of our right to speak. In some cases, as a matter of public policy, we have protected otherwise defenseless people from being punished for the content of their speech. Connecticut, for instance, has a statute that provides protection to an employee from employer retribution for things the employee has said or written.
While the government may not control the content of my speech, neither it nor any private entity has any obligation to provide me a forum, podium or newspaper column from which to propagate my views. That's why I pay money to a web hosting service for the privilege of propagating said views. I also have no right to an audience, so if no one reads this blog, that is my tough luck (or maybe good luck, depending on your point of view). That's also why the New London Day can refuse to print my letters while printing every bit of right wing nonsense it receives.
But I wander. Let's focus on the graduation issue. What's going on here?
A small group of people makes the initial choice of speakers. Particularly in this age when university administrators are becoming ever more like CEOs, the decision quite often does not even involve meaningful input from the students, alumni and parents who will be the captive audience of the chosen speaker. Once the speaker is chosen, by the logic of those who make the “free speech” claim, the free speech rights of countless potential speakers have been violated by the selection committee, for they have been blocked from speaking every bit as surely as a potential speaker who is later blocked by an outraged student community. Yet, no one seems to feel any sympathy for Richard Dawkins, who year after year has been denied his right to speak to the graduates of Liberty University.
In many cases there is a philosophical and cultural disconnect between the student community (including the parents who have shelled out mega thousands in order to reach graduation day) and the administrators who make the initial decision on who will speak, and therefore the content of the speech to which the audience will be subjected.
To repeat: the speaker has no right to speak, the audience has little choice but to listen. In reality, the protests that often ensue are not about the expected content of the speech, but to the speaker him or herself. For instance, some people don't like it when one of the most important days of their life is spoiled because their corporate school administrators see fit to honor a war criminal as part of the graduation process. Remember that these people are not just giving speeches, they are being awarded honorary degrees, implying a seal of approval from the school, and by extension, the larger school community. So in reality, the protest is usually over the honor being extended, not the anticipated content of the speech, but even if that were the case, there would be no “free speech” issue here. Somewhat like Bartleby, the protestors are simply saying that they “do not choose” to listen.
Now, lets be clear. There are good reasons and bad reasons to oppose a proposed speaker. Just as the choice of a war criminal tells a lot about the initial selection committee, so the reasons protestors give for opposing a given speaker tells a lot about them. It's not just students of course, as the Globe columnist to whom I've linked above notes, there are often outsiders who oppose graduation speakers. As he points out, we learned a lot (mostly bad) about the Bishop of Boston who opposed Boston College's choice of the President of Ireland because Boston College had the “audacity to invite someone who chose to obey his nation’s Supreme Court and create an exception to Ireland’s prohibition against abortion when a woman’s life is endangered.”
The Bishop is a reprehensible toad, we can all grant that. But his opposition to the Irish Prime Minister did not threaten anyone's free speech rights. The Prime Minister was free to say whatever he liked, with no interference from the US government, unless BC chose to exercise its own right to withdraw its invitation. We can probably all agree that BC did itself proud by standing firm. We learned something about the Bishop and something about BC from that incident, but it tells us nothing about free speech.
So, it's not open season on free speech. In some cases, such as that of a certain former Secretary of State, it is righteous anger on the part of students at being forced to choose between attending their own graduation or being complicit in honoring a war criminal. Other proposed honorees have been opposed for less legitimate reasons, but rest assured that Jamie Madison rests easy in his grave, or, I should say, if his sleep is disturbed it is disturbed by the prospect of a nation he helped found being destroyed by a Supreme Court that equates money with speech.