The Cato Institute

Is Freedom of Speech Under Assault on Campus?

In a new analysis, Daniel Jacobson argues that the hostility toward free speech on college campuses makes dissent tantamount to heresy.

In Freedom of Speech under Assault on Campus, Daniel Jacobson, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, contends that today’s progressives use the classical liberal arguments that champion freedom of speech to simultaneously defend and threaten free speech on college campuses. Jacobson looks to writings from John Stuart Mill to defend the freedom of speech and explains how cognitive biases are reinforced by this anti-free speech doctrine.

The most recent wave of assault on free speech is being carried out by the students themselves. The toleration of unpopular and even offensive opinions was once considered central to the purpose of a liberal education, which was not to indoctrinate students dogmatically but to teach them how to form beliefs in what Mill called “a manner worthy of  intelligent beings”: by critically assessing the best arguments on all sides.

Mill believed the best way for students to form their own beliefs is through adverse discussion–the confrontation of opposing arguments. His arguments anticipate several psychological phenomena, three of those are epistemic closure, group polarization and confirmation bias, which are widely recognized today. Epistemic closure is the tendency to restrict ones sources of information to those that one agrees with. Group polarization explains how like-minded views become more extreme in the absence of dissent. Confirmation bias describes the tendency to focus on evidence that supports one’s views, discounting contrary evidence. All three of these tend to undermine the justification of our beliefs, supporting the notion that the toleration of unpopular opinions is necessary to gain knowledge.

Jacobson observes that there has been a recent power shift in academia from liberals who value toleration to progressives who want to stifle it for political purposes. A postmodern challenge states that free speech is impossible because censorship is bound to happen. The progressive challenge advances the postmodern challenge by claiming that free speech should be sacrificed equally to advance the interests of the disadvantaged over the privileged. The multiculturalist challenge holds that certain opinions constitute literal violence and should not be tolerated at all. These challenges build pressure to support a heckler’s veto–denying the rights of those who disagree with popular opinion from sharing their views.

These developments are ironic in the sense that they reinforce both of the liberal arguments for freedom of speech: the freedom of speech is a natural right and that its acceptance best promotes human flourishing. Progressives on campus interpret the natural rights argument to mean that students have a natural right to a safe space free from offensive opinions and sentiments, and this natural right justifies banning certain speech to promote the utility of human flourishing. This interpretation has resulted in everything from trigger warnings and safe spaces to the actual resignations of professors who challenge these sentiments, sending a dangerous message to all campuses that adverse discussion is not welcome.  

“This movement encourages the cultivation of intellectual vices that are antithetical to an intellectually diverse society by granting power to the thin-skinned and the hotheaded—or at any rate to those most ready to claim injury or to threaten violence,” concludes Jacobson. “And it does so subversively, by pretending to enforce norms of civility and tolerance, while doing violence to the classically liberal ideals of a freethinking and intellectually diverse university.”

Read the paper…

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) will be a featured speaker at Cato University 2016, July 24 - 29,in Washington, D.C.

We are delighted to announce that Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) will be a featured speaker at this year’s Cato University. Yet another outstanding reason why we hope you’ll consider joining us this summer!

Cato University is an annual program that brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe–all sharing a commitment to liberty and learning. In the highly politicized atmosphere of an election year, our nation’s capital is the perfect setting for examining the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and for exploring the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded.

This summer, have a spectacular vacation while sharing ideas on how to advance, enhance, and defend your principles about liberty, free markets, individual rights, the dangers of a sprawling, expensive, and intruding government, and much more! We do hope you’ll be able to join us.

At Cato University you’ll hear from an outstanding faculty of lecturers, including:

No Price Increase for 2016: To make this wonderful program as accessible to as many people as possible, we’ve kept the cost of Cato University at $995. This price includes all scheduled events and program materials, but not overnight room charges. However, we have been able to arrange an exceptionally low room rate for participants at a nearby hotel.

Details and Registration: Registration is now open, so register today! Additional information on this year’s schedule and lecturers is available at www.cato-university.org

Live Free and Learn: Scholarship Tax Credits in New Hampshire

In 2012, the Live Free or Die state launched a bold initiative to advance educational freedom: scholarship tax credits. The New Hampshire Opportunity Scholarship Act grants tax credits to businesses worth 85 percent of their contributions to nonprofit scholarship organizations that fund low- and middle-income students to attend private or home schools. The scholarship law then faced both a repeal effort in the legislature and a bitter lawsuit that went to the state’s highest court. 

Live Free and Learn: Scholarship Tax Credits in New Hampshire, the short film above, details the struggle over New Hampshire’s scholarship law and some of the families it has touched.

Want to learn more? Watch this discussion of the film and the law. 

Is it Time to Downsize the Department Of Education?

The Department of Education operates a wide range of subsidy programs for elementary and secondary schools. The aid and related federal regulations have not generally lifted academic achievement. 

The department also subsidizes higher education through student loan programs. Unfortunately, that aid has fueled inflation in college tuition and is subject to widespread abuse. 

The department will spend about $103 billion in 2015, or $837 for every U.S. household. It employs 4,000 workers and operates 120 different subsidy programs.

Learn more…

The Evidence on Universal Preschool

Calls for universal preschool programs have become commonplace, reinforced by President Obama’s call for “high-quality preschool for all” in 2013. Any program that could cost state and federal taxpayers $50 billion per year warrants a closer look at the evidence on its effectiveness.

A review of the major evaluations of preschool programs—including both traditional programs such as Head Start and those designated as “high quality”—does not paint a generally positive picture. 

Before policymakers consider huge expenditures to expand preschool, much more research is needed to demonstrate true effectiveness.

The most methodologically rigorous evaluations find that the academic benefits of preschool programs are quite modest, and these gains fade after children enter elementary school. Meanwhile, most contemporary “high-quality” preschool programs have been evaluated using a flawed, non-experimental methodology that fails to account for children who drop out of treatment groups, thereby biasing outcomes upwards. Furthermore, these evaluations cannot assess the fadeout problem because all children studied—both treatment and control—have taken preschool.

Two “high-quality” programs have been evaluated using a rigorous experimental design, and have been shown to have significant academic and social benefits, including long-term benefits. These are the Abecedarian and Perry Preschool programs. However, using these two studies as the basis for policy is problematic for several reasons: the groups studied were very small, they came from single communities several decades ago, and both programs were far more intensive than the programs being contemplated today.

Learn more….

The Teachers’ Union vs. D.C. Children

There is no disputing that the Washington, D.C., school system is one of the worst in the nation. Although D.C. schools spend nearly $30,000 per student each year, more than a third of students fail to graduate. In a test to determine whether high-school students were college ready, only 10 percent of D.C. students met proficiency standards in math, and just a quarter met the reading standards. The story is even worse for black students; only 4 percent met the math standards.

In response, President Bush established the Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2004. The program provides scholarships (vouchers) that low-income D.C. families can use to send their children to private schools in the District, including religiously affiliated schools. The scholarships are targeted to those students most in need. The average household income for families participating in the program is under $21,000. More than 83 percent of those families are African-American, and another 14 percent are Hispanic/Latino.

But despite a record of success, the omnibus budget deal failed to reauthorize the program beyond this year. President Obama, having defunded the program once, is expected to oppose reauthorization once again. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is unalterably opposed to the program. Why do so many Democrats seem to favor the teachers’ union over poor minority students?

In order to preserve the program for the 2016–17 school year, Congress will have to either push through a stand-alone funding bill in the face of ferocious opposition from Democratic lawmakers and the teachers’ unions, or hope to include the funding in some future budget deal. It’s really a simple choice: poor, minority children, or wealthy, powerful unions. Where do we stand?

Learn more….

Taking Credit for Education: How to Fund Education Savings Accounts through Tax Credits

Every child deserves the chance at a great education and the American dream. Unfortunately, decades of student achievement data reveal that the increasingly costly U.S. district school system does not provide an excellent education for all students. 

In a new study, Cato scholar Jason Bedrick, with coauthors Jonathan Butcher and Clint Bolick, explains how funding Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) through tax credits is a constitutionally sound method of providing every child with the chance at an excellent education.

In their new policy analysis, Taking Credit for Education, Jason Bedrick, Butcher, and Bolick contend that Education Savings Accounts (ESAs)—when properly designed and regulated through tax credits—can empower families with more educational options.

In order to make ESAs available to children from diverse backgrounds, the authors lay out a series of policy recommendations for legislators that would allow flexible spending while minimizing spending fraud and mitigating constitutional concerns that may arise. These Education Savings Accounts will enhance accountability and free taxpayers from being forced into paying for ideas they oppose by providing funds through voluntary tax-credit contributions.

States such as Arizona, Florida, and New Hampshire have experiences with both privately and publicly managed ESAs and tax-credit scholarships that support the use of ESAs funded through tax credits. Policymakers can combine models from these three states to create tax-credit funded educational savings accounts. ESAs funded by charitable donations that are eligible for tax-credits would blend tax-credit scholarships and flexible spending accounts, increasing liberty for both families and scholarship organizations. For example, scholarship organizations can serve as educational advisers to parents and oversee ESAs, while parents have more spending flexibility with the restricted-use debit cards that accompany these accounts.

Although completely eliminating fraud is impossible for any program, private or public, policymakers can take reasonable measures to minimize fraud without unnecessarily burdening ESA families or education providers. Currently, some programs use a reimbursement method to avoid the misuse of funds, but this can be troublesome for families who don’t have money to use upfront. Tax-credit funded ESAs would mitigate this problem by letting parents access ESA funds through a debit card that could be restricted by vendor or by product or service.

While the constitutionality of school choice has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Blaine amendments exist in about 36 state constitutions that generally restrict the use of public funds for religious or sectarian schools. However, scholarship tax credit laws have a perfect record in courts since Blaine amendments usually apply to appropriations of public funds, and tax-credit eligible donations are private funds. Policymakers can also design legislation for these savings accounts in ways that can increase the likelihood of withstanding constitutional scrutiny. For example, lawmakers can fund ESAs through tax credits rather than legislative appropriations, thus making it neither an appropriation, nor a form of aid limited only to religious or private schools.

“Education savings accounts empower families to customize their children’s education,“ the authors conclude. "They are an improvement on traditional school-choice programs because they enhance the freedom of parents to purchase a wide variety of educational products and services and save for educational expenses in future years, including college.”

Read the research….

Why is Educational Freedom So Important?

In an ideal world, every child would have access to the education that’s right for him or her. All parents would be able to choose from a diversity of high-quality options regardless of their means. Parents and educators would harmoniously spend their time and energy on providing the best possible education.

Regrettably, America’s current education system is very far from it. Students are assigned to their school based on the location of their parent’s home. Children from low-income families that cannot afford private schooling or homes in wealthier districts are trapped in underperforming schools. America’s students as a whole lag behind many other industrialized nations on international tests. Government expenditures on K-12 education have more than doubled over the last 40 years (adjusted for inflation), and yet U.S. students’ academic performance at the end of high school is flat. Top-down regulations intended to improve quality instead stifle diversity and innovation. And rather than foster harmony, too often government schools force citizens into social conflict.

What America needs is more educational freedom. Wondering what that is?

Cato’s Educational Freedom Wiki is intended as an introduction to the concept of and case for educational freedom.

Learn more…

Happy School Choice Week!

Held every January since 2011, National School Choice Week has quickly grown into the world’s largest celebration of educational freedom. 

America’s students as a whole lag behind many other industrialized nations on international tests. Government expenditures on K-12 education have more than doubled over the last 40 years (adjusted for inflation), and yet U.S. students’ academic performance at the end of high school is flat. 

In order to build a better-educated, freer future for our country, parents must be free to choose the education that’s best for their kids—no matter where they live or how much they earn. Educators must be free to determine their own curricula and methods and free to set their own prices and compensation. Schools must be free to innovate and compete to attract and retain students. And they must be both free to profit from their successes and compelled to suffer losses for their failures, because the profit-and-loss system spurs innovation, efficiency, and the dissemination of best practices. Likewise, educators must be free to compete in the labor market for positions that give them the greatest professional freedom and compensation.

Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom seeks to shift the terms of public debate in favor of the fundamental right of parents and toward a future when state-run schools give way to a dynamic, independent system of schools competing to meet the needs of American children.

Follow Cato CEF on Twitter and Facebook for the latest educational research and school choice news.