Rachel Keith: Haley Gluhanich, thank you so much for speaking with me. How did FIRE start to see these issues that were erupting at Cape Fear Community College?
Haley Gluhanich: We came across the situation through the news, so we saw an article about it, read into it, and we're like, ‘Oh, we don't really like this.’
RK: What didn't you like about it, and why were you thinking that, ‘Hey, we should bring this up for further discussion?’
HG: So the craziest thing about this situation is that the college administrators were claiming that these slogans needed to be removed from the set design because the school needs to be politically neutral in its activities. But then, when you read the article, another administrator even confirms that the college doesn't have an institutional neutrality policy. So the first question is kind of like, 'okay, where are you getting this from? Like you're citing a policy that doesn't exist.' And then the second part is that even if such a policy did or does exist, institutional neutrality really applies only to the university or college's own official voice. Just because the school or a department sponsors an event does not mean they endorse the speech that comes through it.
RK: So universities and colleges have some leeway to have control over their own administration, but not necessarily all the people who work for their public institution.
HG: So, one of the reasons we're in favor of these institutional neutrality policies is that when a university or a college puts out its stance on a political or social issue, it can actually be really chilling to the rest of the institution's community. If a student or even a faculty member sees, ‘Okay, the college says they condone this type of speech. I'm now nervous that if I am in favor of that speech, and say something about it, saying that I'm in favor of it, I'm going to get in trouble.’ So we really want schools to stay neutral, so that it does not chill speech for everyone else in the community.
RK: And you're saying so you do advise institutions to come up with some of these, or do you feel like the neutrality policies are chilling in and of themselves, because it basically translates to, ‘Oh, I should not speak because I need to be neutral too.’
HG: So we do encourage schools to adopt institutional neutrality policies, and we actually have a policy team that will help institutions craft those policies free of charge. When applied correctly, these institutional neutrality policies should not limit what faculty members, students, or even administrators can say in their personal capacity; it is only the institution's official voice. And that would be an institution coming out on their official social media page saying we condone XYZ, or we are in favor of XYZ, but it should not limit individuals in their own private capacity from speaking their minds.
RK: So again, you feel like they will be able to speak more broadly, because what I've seen with the neutrality policy, they say it affects us too to some degree, and they're watching: if we're not totally neutral in all these different places, then we might get in trouble.
HG: Yeah, we've definitely seen in my work in the campus department that we have seen institutions misapply their institutional neutrality policies. And then we try to work with those institutions and say, ‘Hey, this is not how you should be applying it. This is how you should be applying it instead.’ And so, we're just trying to make sure we are informing institutions more proactively about what those policies can prohibit or not prohibit, because it really shouldn't be affecting student, faculty, or student organization speech.
RK: You all are a national organization operating throughout different states throughout the country. What are you seeing about free speech on campus? Are you worried? Is it getting better? Is it getting worse? Is it dependent on the state, based on your experience over the past four years?
HG: What I can tell you is that I'm always very busy. So if that means anything, I do think that there are certain things that happen in the country that then create an increase of free speech violations that we see. So whether we're super busy or just busy really depends on what's going on in the country. When there are elections, international conflicts, or war, anything really, largely political or social. That's when we'll see a lot of people wanting to speak their mind. And then we're seeing a lot of institutions react to those forms of expression, sometimes appropriately and sometimes not so great. We do work with schools so they don't make those mistakes again, and sometimes, after working with institutions, we do see a decrease in violations.
RK: Do you think that the First Amendment is easy to explain to people?
HG: No, I think what's so complicated about it is, right, you look at the text of the First Amendment, and it's like, ‘Oh, that's really simple. Okay, free speech, cool,’ but there's so much more to it that you can really only gather from learning case law and things like that. So part of FIRE’s mission is to also educate the public. Not just, ‘Hey, this is protected, because the Supreme Court says so.' People will say, "Okay, and why do I care? Or, I still don't like that.” So for us, it's important to explain to them why these protections are so important, and then also explain those nuances in a way people can better understand and apply to their own lives.
RK: Are there top issues for you about where speech is free and where it crosses over to maybe we should rein this in?
HG: We see many institutions claiming that speech is harassment when it's not. We see a lot of institutions saying that speech is a true threat when it's not. And then also a lot of institutions claiming that speech is hate speech, and the Supreme Court has said that there is no exception for hate speech. Hate speech is protected. We see a lot of individuals who will say, ‘Well, I want hate speech not to be protected.’ And they can have that opinion. But the issue is that there is no legal definition of hate speech, and it wouldn't be a good idea to create one, because so many people have their own ideas of what would be considered hate speech and what wouldn't. And then do you trust the people in power to come up with a good definition and apply it correctly? And can it change over time just because people don't like what's being said? So we tried to explain to people as well why it's not a good idea to prohibit hate speech, but those, I would say, are the three big things we see institutions misapplying when punishing students and faculty members.
