Greg Lukianoff wrote an interesting op ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. It deserves serious attention because it illustrates the complex web of government control within higher education.
The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice recently investigated the mishandling of sexual assault cases at the University of Montana, determining that the school failed to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A joint letter from the departments announced a “resolution agreement” with the university, but it extends well beyond Montana. The document, touted as a “blueprint for colleges and universities across the country,” expands the notion of sexual harassment from “objectively offensive” behavior to include all “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including speech. Put another way, students have a right not to be offended by what they hear on campus.
There is an obvious problem with this ruling. Not only should professors and students refrain from harassing speech, but they must also refrain from any speech that might be perceived as harassing. This clearly violates the first amendment, creating a chilling effect on speech with no clear standard concerning what is acceptable.
But what empowers the federal government to issue such a directive concerning speech on college campuses in the first place? You need only follow the money trail to get the answer. Federal financial aid—including both grants and loans—is an essential part of almost every college’s revenue stream. Choose not to accept it and you most students will be at a financial disadvantage if they attend your school. Choose to accept it and you get the unwanted oversight as well. For this reason, only a handful of colleges (Hillsdale and Grove City College are two of them) reject federal aid for their students.
This is truly the devil’s dilemma. Tax revenues—present and future—are confiscated every year to provide financial aid. The federal government issues $112 billion in student loans in 2012 alone. Like the system or not, all of us must pay for it, and opting out is costly to say the least. It’s like paying to send your kids to private schools after you’ve already been taxed to pay for public schools. Technically, we can choose to avoid government intrusion in education, but the system requires us to overpay to exercise the choice.
The fundamental problem here is the federal control of activities over which it should have none, in this instance student financial aid. The Feds took over the program from banks in 2010, ostensibly to run it more efficiently. But the greater the role the federal government plays in financial aid, the more control it has over what happens on college campuses. The University of Montana case illustrates the type of overreach that occurs when the Feds have too much power.
It should go without saying that I favor and attempt to model civil discourse on my college campus, and insulting or harassing behavior is inappropriate. Nonetheless, we need more speech on college campuses, not less. Any steps the federal government takes to restrict speech on campus will inevitably limit the robust exchange of ideas, shortchanging students as a result.
This is what you get with big government. When the leviathan takes from one group to give to another, it always pushes a leftist agenda. Besides, I thought the constitution left education to the states anyway.
I don’t see how your academic freedom of speech is violated by the definition of sexual harassment. The letter of findings explains that:
“A university violates Title IX and Title IV if: (1) a student is sexually harassed and the harassing conduct is sufficiently serious to deny or limit the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the program (i.e., the harassment creates a hostile environment)” (See: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/um-ltr-findings.pdf)
So if your speech does not create a hostile environment (and I’m sure it does not), you should not have a problem to discuss Nabokov’s Lolita in class, if you wish to.
Aliza–read the article, you missed the point. The DOJ and DOE are rewriting the definition of sexual harassment you quoted. This is being done without Congressional action and can be thrust on all colleges as a condition of receiving financial aid for their students.