This is a rather troubled time for universities. I want briefly to reflect, in somewhat Oakeshottian terms, on one reason: the unfortunate transformation of the university as a site of conversation to a site of free speech. The legal framework of the First Amendment’s Speech Clause has been steadily infiltrating a zone of human experience and activity where it does not belong, displacing what was there before and ought to be there still. So, too, in the noxious transposition of free speech metaphors into the university context. Free speech as captured in the so-called “marketplace of ideas,” for example, and the uninhibited discussion of ideas. Or free speech as an instrument to promote democratic deliberation and decision. Whatever the value of these metaphors in American politics (and their value even here is highly qualified), universities are not marketplaces of ideas. Universities, as my friend Paul Horwitz has written, are not and should not be democracies. Universities should not take themselves to be Super Stop & Shops of speech, in which one can find an incalculably vast assortment of a little of everything, and students should not go to universities either to express themselves in unlimited (that is to say, “free”) terms or to hear all manner of expression freely and equally represented. Students should not come to universities with the object of engaging freely in speeches. Universities should not suggest to students that schools are appropriate places for student speech making.
If anything, the concept, though once again not the law, of association, not speech, is more apt to the university setting. To apply the legal understanding of association to the university would be worse than misleading. In the law, associations may be either “intimate” or “expressive.” Universities are neither (I mean here not how the law would classify them, but what they actually are). I would call the university a knowledge association. The primary reason to join a university is to learn. A person learns in a number of ways, one of which is to listen in on what other people are saying and have been saying for centuries and millennia in the field of study or inquiry in which one is interested. In time, that person gradually learns how to contribute to that exchange, or conversation, but the object is not, at first and for a good while thereafter, to add one’s own voice, let alone to drown out the existing voices. A person pursuing this path should feel inhibited, in the sense of feeling cautious and reticent, to speak. The object in universities is not free speech in the way we think of it at law. The object is to become initiated to a world of knowledge of which the student is not aware, and about which the student cannot know by attending too much to the world outside the university (the world in which freedom of speech looms so large) rather than to the world of the university.
All of this requires an awareness on the part of those who join the university association–teachers and students alike–that there actually is a valuable knowledge existing within them in which those who unite themselves to the university association would like to share. If one does not think that universities are the homes of this kind of knowledge, or if one would like very much to bulldoze that knowledge because one has contempt for it, or if one thinks that one has nothing to learn and everything to teach, then the university will simply become an empty vessel into which may be poured whatever unwholesome liquid one would like. Unfortunately, we are well on our way to this substitution. But one major problem of the university today is the free speech creep–a broader problem of legal creep into all facets of life–that has deformed the essential or characteristic virtues of the university and threatens to destroy them altogether.