George Leef’s latest Forbes column focuses on unanticipated results stemming from congressional meddling in higher education.
When federal politicians passed the Higher Education Act, they thought they were only going to help good students who couldn’t otherwise afford college to attend. They did not think about possible unintended consequences — like making college far more expensive, undermining academic standards, or giving federal bureaucrats leverage to dictate to colleges and universities.
But all of that has happened.
I’m going to focus on that last consequence—the way federal intervention in higher education has empowered bureaucrats to whittle away at free speech on (and even off) campus. …
… Can a public institution expel a student merely for off campus speech that doesn’t threaten anyone?
That is what the court will have to decide in Yeasin v. University of Kansas, currently before the Kansas Court of Appeals. Amicus briefs have been filed by the Student Press Law Center and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and, strangely enough, Kansas State University, arguing that the University of Kansas far overstepped its authority.
The SPLC/Fire brief gets the core of the case exactly right, stating, “Across the country, colleges are seeking to expand their punitive authority over students’ off-campus, online lives. Students routinely face life-altering disciplinary charges for misunderstood jokes or crude comments – even with no connection to the college – incurring penalties once reserved for violent criminal behavior.”
The university counters that it acted “appropriately and in accordance with its obligations under Title IX.”
Call that the “Title IX made us do it” defense.
That defense, however, should not succeed. The Department of Education’s bureaucrats cannot override the First Amendment and college officials cannot be allowed to hide behind Title IX when they impose subjective, overbroad rules against free speech.
