How Trump, social media threaten exercise of free speech at Fresno State | Opinion
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Fresno State placed a lecturer on leave after a viral video of violent remarks.
- University cites academic freedom but reviews conduct under union process.
- Federal funding threats and social media create a chilling effect on speech.
My idea of what a college education should be is a free flow of ideas toward higher learning. But classrooms today are so much different than when I attended then-Humboldt State University in the early 1980s.
Right or wrong, cell phones capture any misstatement or mistake, and viral moments get made. The freedom to speak gets hampered by excessive self-restraint because nobody wants to be shown in a bad light on social media.
Sometimes blatantly offensive comments do get captured. Such was the case with remarks made by Barri Brennan, a lecturer in Fresno State’s communications program.
Right after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot last month, but before his death was announced, Brennan told some students gathering in her class the following:
“You want to know what I think? It’s too bad he’s not dead. Gonna put my political views right out there. And that’s exactly what I thought. He’s just shot? I was like, he’s not dead? I don’t even know who he is. Just a description of him. Don’t care.”
Brennan’s view was obviously offensive and wrong — no one should wish death upon another. But in America, citizens have the right to speak their minds, even when such commentary is ugly. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech is wrong only when it directly incites violence.
Of course, a video with Brennan’s sound bite was posted on social media and an uproar followed. The university placed her on leave and started an investigation into whether she violated any policies. That review is ongoing. She has yet to return to the university.
The university’s Statement on Academic Freedom supports professors’ ability to freely teach and research, but with the responsibility of representing Fresno State honorably. That will likely be what Brennan’s case turns on.
Jiménez-Sandoval’s view
Bee Opinion Editor Juan Esparza Loera and I interviewed Fresno State President Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval a few weeks ago, and I brought up the issue of academic free speech. Here is the transcript of that conversation:
Weber: Explain how you view First Amendment rights for faculty.
Jiménez-Sandoval: We clearly abide by the First Amendment. We celebrate the First Amendment in everything we do. At the same time, we fully disagree with statements that celebrate violence and that celebrate killing and that celebrate anything else like that.
I feel that each one of us has the right to speak our minds and our right to the First Amendment within your own private setting; perfectly fine, that is your choice. However, when you are a representative of Fresno State, you do have to be cognizant about some boundaries that you embody within the classroom.
We don’t censor our people. We don’t go against the First Amendment with our people in the least. But we are trying to set the tone for a nonpartisan way of teaching within the classroom that embodies all of the powers of the First Amendment, but also embodies the power of academic freedom within the classroom as well.
Weber: Critics would say by not having her (Brennan) come back to school, you are censoring her in probably the most significant way. How would you answer that criticism?
Jiménez-Sandoval: I would say we have a process that we are following at Fresno State and this is part of the process. That’s it.
Weber: If she is not able to return to school, either in this academic year or the next one, would that signify to instructors at the campus that if they engage in controversial speech, they are not welcome at Fresno State?
Jiménez-Sandoval: I am not sure I want to go down that hypothetical. Again, we have a process right now we are following based on the collective bargaining agreement we have with the union. The union is at the table fully and completely, and we are both speaking about the process and the next steps as well.
Weber: Professors make controversial statements, and they should have the right to do that. I believe you are saying that, if you say you uphold the First Amendment.
Jiménez-Sandoval: What I am saying is that we all have the right to the First Amendment. That is fully and completely on the table. We are not going to censor our professors. But what we are also saying is that both the union and I and everyone else, we all want a classroom in which nonpartisanship is what rules the lesson. And in which we don’t speak about wishing ill to anyone because that, to me, though protected by the First Amendment in a very profound way, I don’t know that that has a space within the classroom. That is all I am saying.
Academic freedom on the line
A problem I find with the final answer lies in that word “nonpartisan.” Even the neutral intent of that word can be misconstrued.
Let’s imagine I am teaching a political science class, and I produce a list of how President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by actions like withholding money that Congress already allocated or not giving due process to people detained in immigration raids.
These examples are facts, not opinions. But what if some student takes offense and complains that I am bashing Trump or am anti-conservative?
And, really, so what if I am biased? Are students today so gullible that they won’t see my opinions for that they are? Of course not. Students today are just like those back in my day: smart, savvy, world-wise. They can figure it out. Seeing through a professor’s bias is part of the learning process.
There is something more sinister at work today, however, that also acts against free speech.
Trump has made clear by withholding federal funds to universities like Harvard and Columbia that he will willingly attack higher education. Earlier this month I wrote about $5 million in federal grants to Fresno State being cut by the Trump administration because the university was a Hispanic-Serving Institution. Trump sees that as discriminatory.
The chilling effect of such action is resounding at colleges across the nation — even at Fresno State.
As I reported this column, I had several Fresno State professors tell me they and their colleagues don’t want to say or do anything that puts the university in a bad light.
“I do think people are fairly guarded,” said Dr. Lisa Bryant, chair of the political science department. “They don’t want to be the person responsible for getting the university on the radar of the (Trump) administration. It’s the feeling that higher education and academia are in the cross-hairs of the administration. It is always there in the back of your mind.”
That is no way to teach or research. Professors should be free to teach as they deem best, be they conservative, liberal or moderate.
Do Americans want their universities to be places of robust learning and discovery, or not? Ultimately, that is the question we each have to answer — with our votes.
