Certain opinions yield fiery reactions. An undesired synergy occurs when Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito decide to join hands on an opinion – one that has recently thrown light onto their viewpoint on campus free speech – a discussion worth conducting. Recently, Thomas and Alito explicitly expressed their interest in resolving the controversial matter of whether ‘bias-reporting schemes’ suppress students’ freedom of speech through a dissent they penned in case surrounding a Virginia Tech University policy for ‘bias intervention and response.’ This has been reported in detail by Law and Crime.
The two justices have taken up arms, an appeal they claim bears an imperative question worthy of addressing “universities nationwide.” While controversial, it is furthermore essential to note the underlying motive behind Thomas’ concern, that seems more aligned towards the wider right-wing goal of freely expressing harmful stereotypes without facing the consequences, rather than the hypothetical ‘chilling effect’ these schemes might impose. The repercussions of bigotry, which often involve social exclusion or prevention of hostile educational or work environment, are hardly deemed a concern in their argument; rather, characterizing these bias rules as ‘literal speech policing’ is more of a coded expression for the privilege to propagate prejudiced views without the dread of being judged.
Loud and clear agendas baselessly promoting bigotry are not new in American politics, seen from the successful attempt to make PragerU content part of school curricula to the founder of Blackwater’s call for reinstating imperialism and more. The fear of being ridiculed for expressing bigotry stems not from a restraint on free speech but from a deficiency of courage. Moreover, inciting hate seems more of a method of ascending the prestige ladder rather than a suppressed behavior with Thomas himself hiring the person renowned for their racist remarks.
Though it’s undeniable that this dissent is primarily Thomas expressing his disdain for liberal moralists, trying to create controversy from a moot case, it’s critical to acknowledge that there lies a relevant point at its core. Could a school misuse such policies against a minority student raising their voice in form of campus protest? Recent events like Northwestern threatening students with jail time over a parody newspaper that accused the school of being complicit in genocide shows that it doesn’t take much to foresee such situations. Although Northwestern being a private institution does not come under the purview of such a policy, if an analogous incident occurred at a public university like CUNY, it would indeed pose a legitimate concern over whether a student’s political opinions are being suppressed.