In the first draft of this cartoon, the first panel went out of its way to make fun of Emma Camp’s New York Times article about students being afraid to say controversial things. Camp described her own freedom of speech being threatened when Camp said something unpopular in class: “I saw people shift in their seats. Someone got angry, and then everyone seemed to get angry.”
Camp’s article was praised highly by centrists and conservatives who, I think it’s fair to say, are proud of themselves for their support of free speech.
That same week, the Times published an editorial which said:
Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.
Years ago, I drew a comic strip for the University of Massachusetts student newspaper. One cartoon caused a bunch of students to get very angry at me – so angry that they circulated a petition condemning me and my strip, which is almost as bad as shifting in their seats. But it never occurred to me that what they were doing was a threat to my free speech.
(They eventually invited me to come talk; I think there were thirty or forty of them and one me. But they ended up being nice, as people sometimes are when it’s face to face. We never ended up fully agreeing, but we agreed that we all meant well and that was pretty much the end of it.)
I’d certainly like people to be kinder. But the Times editorial board, and Emma Camp, don’t seem to give enough weight to the fact that counterspeech and criticism – even if someone is shamed – is also free speech. No matter how uncomfortable it might have made me to have a petition against me at UMASS, they still had a free speech right to circulate their petition.
Law student Trevor Floyd wrote:
The truth is that when people like Camp and Youngkin argue for more free speech on college campuses by citing to the reactions and consequences of unpopular statements, they are actually arguing against free speech. Camp at one point cites an experience where she expressed a point of view that made her classmates upset, obtusely writing that she “can tell” when a discussion “goes poorly” for her. Camp also references a Republican peer who chooses not to talk about his politics openly because he does not want his classmates to react poorly. According to Camp’s essay, these and other similar stories amount to an assault on free speech and debate.
But what Camp seems to want is speech at any time without consequence. Perhaps students in class don’t engage in “debate” in the way Camp desires because they recognize they are there to learn, not to be the loudest person in the room. Perhaps students react poorly to a peer trumpeting conservative politics because they find those politics harmful. Nobody has threatened to imprison or harm Camp for exercising her speech, but she seems to believe that a reciprocation of that exercise is essentially the same thing.
When it comes to the possible chilling of free speech on campus, centrist and right-wing defenders of campus free speech have been exquisitely sensitive. The smallest things – a disagreement that is too strongly worded, students shifting in their seats – have frequently been described as serious threats to speech on campus.
Yes, as we’ve seen this year, many of those same critics see no free speech threat when police in riot gear swarm onto campus to arrest and drag away largely peaceful protestors against Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In fact, they’ve been excusing the arrests of protestors, pointing to “content neutral” rules and some Jewish students feeling uncomfortable.
Abdallah Fayyad at VOX points out that these excuses don’t hold much water:
In many cases, universities have alleged that the protests were disruptive and pointed to the fact that some Jewish students felt that the encampments created an unsafe environment for them on campus. While harassment and intimidation can be reasons to involve law enforcement, the accusations against these protesters mostly focused on their chants and campaign slogans — and in many cases wrongly conflate anti-Israel rhetoric with antisemitism. (It’s worth noting that the arrested student protesters have largely been charged with trespassing, not harassment or violent acts.)
One of the other problems with how many universities and officials have responded to pro-Palestinian demonstrations is that they have changed their protest rules since October 7, in some instances specifically targeting Palestinian solidarity groups.
At Columbia, for example, the university issued onerous protest guidelines, including limiting the areas students are allowed to protest and requiring that demonstrations be registered weeks in advance. Northwestern University abruptly imposed a ban on erecting tents and other structures on campus, undermining ongoing protests. Indiana University preemptively changed its rules one day before its students set up an encampment by disallowing tents and changing a decades-old rule. And in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order requiring that public universities change their free speech policies and singled out pro-Palestinian groups that he said ought to be disciplined.
“Content neutral” rules, when written especially for and enforced specifically against pro-Palestine protesters, are not content neutral, no matter how neutral the words used are.
I genuinely hate that some Jewish students feel unsafe because of protests and anti-Israel chants – and, of course, the few cases of actual assault and direct intimidation are beyond the pale. But the solution is not mass arrests of students who are largely peaceful and, in many cases, themselves Jewish.
(And the concern for students feeling intimidated is one-sided; no one is talking about Palestinian students being intimidated, or Jewish anti-war activists being intimidated.)
There are some hard, complicated things to think about when it comes to large-scale student protests.
Mass arrests of peaceful protesters isn’t a hard call, though. From a free speech perspective, this should be the easiest call in the world.
That third panel may be the most complicated single panel I draw all this year! There are around thirty five characters in the panel – although of course, a bunch of those are the cops standing in formation. I only drew two of those, then copy-and-pasted to create all the others. (I did draw individual faces on most of them.)
I made the first two panels as simple as they could be, to contrast with the ultra-busy third panel.
Right now I’m pleased with how this comic looks – but of course, I only finished drawing it a couple of hours ago. I hope I’ll still like it in a year or two. And I hope you like it now.
TRANSCRIPT OF CARTOON
This cartoon has three panels. The first two panels are normal-sized, while the third panel is gigantic.
PANEL ONE
A man and a woman are walking together, the woman speaking. Neither of them are students, judging from their age and their professional dress.
The man has white-blonde hair and glasses, and is wearing a blue shirt with a black tie. He looks worried. The woman has a red blouse and a black skirt, and has her hair pulled up into a bun. She is holding up a finger in a “this is my point” gesture, and is calm but a bit fervent.
For this and the next panel, the background is blank.
WOMAN: Students have a right to speak their minds without fear of being shamed or shunned. free speech on campus is in danger of being wiped out!
PANEL TWO
The two continue walking. The woman, waving her arms a bit as she gets passionate and a bit angry, continues speaking.
WOMAN: At some schools, students protested and heckled speakers! We must protect free speech from woke student totalitarians!
PANEL THREE
The man and women have come to a stop, and are looking at a protest. The man, looking concerned, speaks to the woman. The woman looks over the protest with a pleased expression, her arms folded.
The main focus in this panel is the protest – and even more, the cops in full riot gear attacking the protest. A huge line of cops in formation are marching towards the protest. Cops are leading away handcuffed protesters; one protester is being held on the ground and beaten. The protesters who aren’t being arrested look terrified. Protest signs lie on the ground.
MAN: So is this a threat to free speech?
WOMAN: No, this is fine.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…