[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1416-S1417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Free Speech

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor 
recently on the subject of free speech as it applies to the world of 
digital media. The principles of free speech are timeless and are 
applicable to new forms of communication. Still, it is natural that new 
questions will arise and new mechanisms might be needed to apply those 
principles across new modes of communication.
  What shouldn't be in question is the need for open dialogue and 
freedom of speech in academia. Otherwise, what does the principle of 
academic freedom mean if it isn't involved with freedom of speech?
  All of the progress that has made modern life possible has been the 
result of individuals who have been able to think of things in new 
ways, even if that challenged an old orthodoxy. A healthy and vibrant 
academic environment is not afraid of those challenges.
  Only stagnant, defensive, and unconfident regimes suppress speech. 
Think about the recent protests in Russia, Belarus, or Burma. China's 
restrictions on the internet and suppression of minorities show that it 
is threatened by contrary ways of thinking.
  Which would you describe as an advanced, stable, and dynamic society: 
North Korea or South Korea? Obviously, that describes South Korea well. 
It does not at all describe that part of the Korean Peninsula north of 
the 38th parallel.
  So what does it say about so many American academic institutions that 
the notion of free thought and free speech has now become 
controversial? What purpose do universities serve if one of the 
purposes is not to discuss controversial subjects? I often say my 
definition of a university is where controversy runs rampant.
  We hear lots of rationales about why the current generation of 
college students needs to be protected from hearing speech that could 
be offensive, hateful, or just plain wrong. Of course, none of us 
support hateful speech. I don't support it, but I do support freedom.
  If you empower those in authority to limit hate speech, whether they 
be college administrators or government officials, that power will 
eventually be abused to limit dissenting points of view of all kinds, 
and that is where some universities are right now.
  Even in Iowa's three public universities, we have seen recent efforts 
to shut down mainstream, center-right views. For instance, a dean at 
the University of Iowa sent an email across a university platform 
criticizing a Trump administrative Executive order, but at that same 
university, when a student challenged the position of the dean using 
the very same medium, the student was threatened with disciplinary 
action.
  Well, the dean has since apologized for his initial handling of the 
subject, so I don't raise that to pick on him. In fact, that very dean 
has befriended me in very many ways and in thoughtful ways as well. But 
it just makes you wonder if it is part of a broader cultural trend in 
academia, what went on in that instance at the University of Iowa.

  Then there was an English professor at Iowa State University who had 
to be reprimanded for banning her students from writing papers 
expressing certain viewpoints such as opposition to abortion or same-
sex marriage. The president of my alma mater, the University of 
Northern Iowa, had to step in to reverse a decision by the student 
senate denying a group of pro-life students student organization status 
purely because of their political views.
  In each case, the university administrations of these three 
universities ultimately resolved these incidents well and properly so. 
I mention them not to pick on my State of Iowa's universities and not 
to criticize any university, for that matter, but because they seem to 
be examples of a broader trend on campuses across the country of a 
knee-jerk reaction to shut down speech some find disagreeable.
  The best response to the expression of views that you find repugnant 
is speech that points out the errors of that particular way of 
thinking. Now, I think that is best expressed by the University of 
Chicago's policy, which has become kind of a gold standard for free 
speech advocacy on university campuses. The University of Chicago 
expressly prohibits obstructing or otherwise interfering with freedom 
of others to express views they reject or even loathe.
  If you are confident in the rightness of your views and you have an 
environment that allows free expression of those views, you need not 
fear speech you find wrong. Of course, that assumes that human beings 
are all gifted with the power of reason and can discern what is right.
  Now, if it happens that that is not the case, if people cannot be 
trusted to listen to different views and come to the right conclusion, 
then there is no basis for democracy and our system of self-government, 
then, is fundamentally flawed.
  You can shield students from hearing challenging and uncomfortable 
views while in college but not when they get out in the real world. 
Just think of these college students who are on campus. What if they 
had left high school for the world of work? They would be faced with 
all these things every day.
  So what is special about a college campus? In fact, it is so special 
that you ought to have a discussion of all these subjects. Academic 
institutions that do not allow for student views to be challenged, to 
be tested, to be refined through rigorous debate are doing those very 
same students a very great disservice. These students' knowledge will 
be limited, then, and their views unsophisticated. Their ability to 
deal with different ways of thinking, which they will inevitably 
encounter throughout their lifetime, will be greatly diminished.
  I feel sorry for students who graduate from colleges that cocoon them 
from controversy. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I have 
always thought of a university as a place where controversy should run 
rampant.
  The notion that the voices students hear must be curated for their 
own good is concerning, not just because it has a totalitarian ring but 
because it is harming students in the long run, when they have to deal 
with the real world.

[[Page S1417]]

If students are showing up on campus unable to cope emotionally with 
hearing conflicting viewpoints, that is a problem of their upbringing 
and education to that point, before they go to that university. It is 
something colleges need to confront head-on for their students' well-
being. Further shielding students from having their views challenged 
and then sending them out in the world thinking they are prepared is a 
recipe for failure.
  Americans seem to be losing the ability to understand the point of 
view of those with whom they disagree. That is an unrealistic point of 
view for Americans to have. It is a failure to teach about freedom. 
Questioning of motives has replaced principled argument. Shouting 
insults has displaced logical debate.
  Don't you see, this is a societal trend that increasingly is 
reflected in the Halls of Congress--right here. Those who have attended 
institutions of higher education should have to be exposed to the great 
thinkers of the past and the present, be able to argue points 
logically, and, more importantly, understand the points of those whom 
they are trying to persuade or refute.
  College graduates should be models of civil discourse. Instead, they 
are too often the vanguard of the closing of the American mind. For the 
sake of their students and for the benefit of society, I urge college 
administrators, trustees, alumni, and all Americans who value the free 
exchange of ideas to work toward reversing this trend.
  Open debate may seem contentious at times, but it is the only path 
toward mutual understanding, which is so needed right now in American 
society, our less-than-civil American society, which that less-than-
civil American society tends to show up in a democracy that has 
representative government where, if you are really going to have 
representative government, wouldn't you expect some of what is 
happening at the grassroots to show up here in the Halls of Congress? 
And we do see it all the time, to our shame.