The Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964 is commonly remembered as a triumph of student activism and constitutional rights. But in retrospect it seems clear to me that the movement’s long-term effects have not been beneficial for the university or for civic discourse more broadly. I now regard it as a mistake.
The university’s original policy – banning the use of campus facilities for partisan political advocacy – was not a form of censorship but rather a principled attempt to preserve the academic mission of the university. The policy didn’t suppress serious political discussion or curtail intellectual freedom. On the contrary, it protected a space for reasoned, dispassionate debate – what might be called academicspeech. Faculty and students were always free to discuss controversial issues in the classroom, to publish essays, and to argue competing viewpoints. What was prohibited was the use of the university’s institutional resources – its spaces and its imprimatur – for organizing and campaigning in the manner of political parties or pressure groups.
By breaking down this boundary the Free Speech Movement led to the transformation of the university into a sponsor of activism and advocacy, blurring the line between academic inquiry and political mobilization. As a result, universities were increasingly drawn into the partisan conflicts of the day, often at the expense of their core academic purpose.
In hindsight, the university’s initial posture appears not only prudent but wise. It preserved the university as a space where ideas are considered on their merits rather than judged according to their value for partisans. Genuinely deliberative speech – disciplined, informed, and oriented toward understanding – is more endangered now than it was in 1964.