Senate Resolution 233--Recognizing the Importance of Protecting Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Expression At Institutions of Higher Education

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is so interesting to always come to the floor and speak on topics that are important to Tennesseans and I think also to Americans. As I begin my remarks, I want to kind of build the context for this and take us back to a time I know the Presiding Officer recalls, and so do I. It was the sixties. I was a child who was growing up. I remember it as a decade where bold statements and brash behavior and activists from each side of the aisle set the standard for what we today look at and say is a modern-day political protest. What we saw in this decade was once-sleepy college campuses became the scenes of widespread unrest. Tensions were high and conditions were perfect for what else but a Supreme Court battle.

In September 1969, a group of students attending Central Connecticut State University decided they wanted to organize a local chapter of the organization Students for Democratic Society. The university president rejected the application, claiming that the SDS philosophy was ``antithetical to the school's policies'' and could be a disruptive influence on campus.

Now, I am sure he thought he had a good point. The national SDS organization was known for its fiery protests, and its now-notorious acts of civil disobedience. They made it their business to make authority figures nervous. Nervousness, however, is not an exception to the First Amendment. The students knew that, so the lawsuits started flying. The students' case finally made it to the Supreme Court, which held that ``the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies in full force on the campuses of public colleges and universities.'' That case, Healy v. James, was a win for free speech. Although precedent continues to trend in the right direction, the First Amendment is in danger on the American college campus. From so-called free speech zones to severely restricted speech codes, campus officials are doing their best to ensure that students are protected from anything that may challenge their preexisting notions of right and wrong.

Instead of creating a safe environment, these policies have backfired, creating an atmosphere of fear and violence toward opposing viewpoints.

Just this past April, protesters at the University of Texas at Austin used smoke bombs to shut down a pro-life speaker at a Young Conservatives of Texas event.

In 2017, the editorial staff at Wellesley College's student newspaper threatened hostility toward anyone whose beliefs--their beliefs; not just their words but their beliefs--did not fit into the acceptable liberal mold.

That same year, Middlebury College campus--their left behaved so disgracefully that one progressive columnist begged the students at his alma mater to find a way to protest views they disagree with without shutting down speech entirely.

In the face of such hostility toward free and open debate, I ask this body, what have we done, and what can be done to turn back the tide?

Today, on the eve of National Higher Education Day, I am introducing the Campus Free Speech Resolution of 2019. It is a first step in restoring sanity to free speech for American college students. This resolution first and foremost recognizes that free speech zones and restrictive speech codes contradict the guarantees of the First Amendment. It recognizes that universities should protect the free and open exchange of ideas and that freedom of speech is worth protecting in a world increasingly hostile to democracy.

Through this resolution, I encourage the Secretary of Education to promote policies that encourage intellectual curiosity, viewpoint diversity, and debate. Last but not least, I encourage the Attorney General to defend and protect the First Amendment.

Standing by as universities surrender to activists who value their own comfort over the free exchange of ideas isn't just a mistake; it is a moral inversion.

We have a duty to make sure younger generations understand that protecting the First Amendment means protecting one another in the public square--even if we want more than anything to shut down what we are hearing. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Above all, we have a duty to help them understand that an America where curiosity is replaced by suspicion, where debate is replaced by intimidation, and where speech is replaced by silence is no America at all.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source