Are Concerns about Campus Illiberalism Just Another Moral Panic?

The National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement recently released its 2022-2023 Fellows Research Findings. One of the research projects, titled “Beyond the Moral Panic of ‘Student Self-Censorship,” asks the question of whether all the uproar over campus free-speech issues amounts to a moral panic. To determine this, Senior Fellow Dr. Elizabeth Niehaus and her team interviewed 55 students across seven colleges and universities (their findings reflect the 36 students who completed both interviews and the 19 who completed just the first interview; all participants were undergraduates). They found that students have more nuanced views of free speech than they are typically credited with.

Dr. Niehaus’ research was motivated by what she saw as a “narrative around the censorious nature of college students” that was “often presented as descriptive and evidence-based, drawing from large-scale surveys of college students” despite being “based on normative stances on how college students should interact with one another that often go unexamined.” She points to specific organizations like The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and Heterodox Academy that regularly conduct surveys about student attitudes toward free expression on campus. She argues that these surveys fail to capture the details of what these concepts actually mean to students. 

It is unclear, however, what Dr. Niehaus takes issue with in FIRE’s survey design and methodology as it is similar to what she and her team did, just with a larger sample. A significant difference is that the FIRE survey asked students to rank their feelings toward expressing themselves on campus, so it would be fair to argue that this data could be limiting in terms of the actual information one can glean from the survey. But in addition to the rankings, FIRE collected short-answer responses from students wherein they could elaborate on their perspectives on the issues covered in the survey, similar to the methods employed by Dr. Niehaus and her team. This approach was productive in both surveys.

Nevertheless, Dr. Niehaus raises an important question regarding the types of surveys conducted by organizations like FIRE: How many of the issues they highlight end up being self-fulfilling prophecies? That is, when students are bombarded by stories of censorship and “woke mobs” on campus, do they believe these are real threats regardless of the evidence? 

Pointing to research she conducted in 2020-2021, Dr. Niehaus concludes that "[t]he moral panic narrative also exacerbates students’ fears about speaking up on campus; if students believe that everyone around them is self-censoring, they are likely to do so as well.” Even so, she also finds in the same survey that students have decent heuristics for determining when and when not to speak, and they don’t have much to do with feeling oppressed in the classroom. She received several responses to this question, but the prevailing attitude was that students mostly spoke up when they felt they could contribute to other students’ learning and stayed silent when they couldn’t.

Emerging Voices, Shifting Dynamics

Despite the demographic diversity in both Dr. Niehaus’ and FIRE’s interviews and surveys, it was not always the case that everyone was included in the campus conversations. Indeed, one of the more important points that Dr. Niehaus’ research highlights is that even if there were “good old days” of free speech on campus, they were never really good old days. She points out that “[t]hroughout the history of higher education in the United States, a variety of perspectives have been excluded from campus discourse, which contributed to a perception of free and open discourse among those who were allowed to be part of that discourse.” 

She is, of course, correct in her assessment here. To the extent that there is a moral panic surrounding free speech on campus, it could be argued that it is simply a manifestation of the anxieties of historically powerful groups and individuals having to reassess their positions vis-á-vis historically marginalized groups that have emerged to claim their rightful places in the discourse. Indeed, Dr. Niehaus’ argument takes on this flavor, and she enriches it with student perspectives that expose a sensitivity to different individuals and their perspectives. Students recognize that their ignorance of different perspectives might cause unintended offense to someone, but those surveyed did not then argue that discussion should be shut down because of it. Instead, one student opted for a strategy of “just figuring it out.” This student, like Dr. Niehaus, recognizes that the classroom is a space where ethical dilemmas we all face in real life can be navigated and explored in a low-stakes environment.

The study explores many more issues relevant to the campus free speech conversation. When asked about their understanding of knowledge, students were appropriately mixed. Some thought truth might not be absolute; some argued for an empirical approach (but also wondered how they should assess evidence); some thought a speaker’s first-hand experience gave them sufficient knowledge claims. 

When it came to their understanding of harm, their responses were again varied. One student argued that individuals in classrooms should be sensitive to everyone present so as not to cause unintended harm; another student saw targeted hate speech as harmful because of their personal experience. Students also differentiated how they understood different types of harm. Mostly, it came down to being sensitive to those around you and understanding that your perspective might be limited and could benefit from exposure to others so as to reduce the likelihood of causing them harm.

They also investigated students’ understanding of community, responsibility, and character. Their responses were similarly reasoned and thoughtful, but for the sake of space, I will not go into them here lest I re-present the study's full findings.

Confronting Authoritarianism, On and Off Campus

Perhaps the most critical point in Dr. Niehaus’ study is that if this is all, in fact, just a moral panic, we should be motivated to temper the narrative around campus speech issues simply because it invites actual authoritarianism to campus. Whether the surveys conducted by organizations like FIRE and Heterodox Academy are accurate is irrelevant when we’re faced with state legislatures who use and abuse the narratives they foster about campus censorship and illiberalism to exert more control over universities. The most egregious example of this is New College in Florida, where the state has basically gutted the liberal arts college in favor of turning it into the “Hillsdale of the South.” But aside from this high-profile example, there are many more reasons to worry about how states use the narrative surrounding campus free speech to limit free speech and academic freedom through legislation or intimidation.

State interference in higher education should force us to consider how we talk about on-campus threats to free speech and academic freedom. We cannot and should not ignore legitimate examples and trends of campus-generated problems. Still, we also should be measured and clear about our concerns and how they are motivated by a dislike for all types of authoritarianism, not just the type that can emanate from the classroom. 

Indeed, while Dr. Niehaus’ research reveals that students do not seem to be the puritans they are made out to be, it sidesteps the problematic relationship between the students who would oppose viewpoint diversity and the administrators who are all too eager to limit liberty on campus. The economics of bureaucracy demand that administrative offices increase the size and scope of their influence to continue justifying their existence.  In her research, Dr. Niehaus references a piece by  Jane Coaston, who makes a similar argument in a policy report by the Cato Institute on campus free speech:

If we are to address campus illiberalism, we should focus less on what’s taught in college classrooms and more on the authoritarian nature of the growing administrative apparatus. Often, administrative offices do not exist to serve open inquiry and academic freedom. Instead, they are created to address some ill-defined problem. They then benefit from the vagaries of their missions and creep further and further into campus life until they are so inextricably entwined in campus culture that extricating them seems impossible. 

Opposing authoritarianism from inside and outside of campus should be the main point of narratives surrounding free speech issues on campus. Otherwise, it becomes a convenient tool for either side to serve their opportunistic ends.

Complementary Perspectives

Dr. Niehaus’ research is a valuable contribution to the campus speech discourse. It serves as a thoughtful counterbalance to organizations like FIRE and Heterodox Academy by providing a different perspective on the issue. It does this by showing that students are not necessarily driving the free speech issues we’re seeing on campus. However, it remains unclear whether it is appropriate to refer to the phenomenon as a “moral panic.” Still, there is compelling evidence that we should at least be more careful about how we shape the narrative, lest it be promoted for nefarious purposes. 

Even though Dr. Niehaus takes issue with the surveys conducted by FIRE and Heterodox Academy, her own research complements them well. Her way of teasing out the nuanced perspectives of the students she interviewed is helpful if we wish to reframe the conversation around these issues. Perhaps pushing a narrative of self-censorship can be self-defeating if (1) students begin to act accordingly and (2) state legislators move to limit academic freedom. But at the same time, such events cannot be ignored, and the trends of the past few years cannot be downplayed. 

Dr. Niehaus does offer some possible solutions, though. She outlines three approaches she thinks could be used to address civil discourse, ethics, and framing of the campus free speech issue. As a solution to the problem of civil discourse, she offers dialogue classes designed with evidence-based approaches to navigating controversial topics. She argues that the tools learned in these classes could be taken with them throughout their college careers, hopefully improving students’ ability to engage with each other productively. This seems like a feasible solution. As she mentions, students are already required to take a handful of classes, so why not one that teaches them how to discuss challenging topics in a civil way? 

Regarding ethics, she proposes exposing students and faculty to philosophical texts dealing with epistemology, virtue ethics, consequentialism, ethics of care, moral responsibility, consent, dignity, and contractualism. While I find this recommendation most appealing personally, it is unclear how practical it would be. Nevertheless, it would likely be the most robust and effective way of dealing with these problems long-term.

She concludes with a call to reframe the narrative surrounding free speech. Framing it as a “self-censorship” crisis that “does not encourage students and faculty to engage with controversial issues.” Furthermore, she is correct that it could result (and potentially has resulted) in unintended consequences like legislation that targets academic freedom. Even so, this is a tricky tightrope to walk because if the primary concern is combating authoritarian on- and off-campus, then it is vital to call a spade a spade and not allow campus-born censorious behavior to go unnamed. Whether the narrative is framed as it currently is or reframed according to Dr. Niehaus’ recommendation, bad-faith actors will do what they want. Reframing could be seen as an admission of guilt, or the language used in the reframing could simply be used to further odious agendas in new, creative ways. It is unclear that the choices of bad actors will be affected by good-faith efforts to work around them.

Moral Panic or Not, Free Speech Discourse Requires Contesting Perspectives

Dr. Niehaus’ research into whether the campus free speech discourse is just another moral panic is compelling. Her interviews are careful and nuanced, and the students are shown to be far more mature and thoughtful than they are typically given credit for. She foregrounds essential questions regarding the limits of survey data, marginalization in the history of U.S. higher education, ethics, knowledge, and power. She rightfully points out that careless narratives can give too much slack to bad actors. 

Despite her differences with the prevailing discourse surrounding campus speech issues, her research is well suited to complement it in productive ways. She brings different and important perspectives to the conversation and helps move us toward framing the issues with a little more clarity.

Ultimately, anybody who cares about free speech issues on college campuses should engage with this research. If we want robust defenses of free speech, we must enrich as many of our conversations as possible with perspectives that inch us closer to that asymptotic end we’re constantly striving for.