Greg Lukianoff: How Colleges Fight Free Speech

"You can get in trouble for saying almost anything these days on a college campus," says Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Lukianoff's latest book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, discusses 11 years of free speech restrictions and the how college bureaucrats have hampered open debate and encouraged a culture of uncritical thinking.

Reason correspondent Kennedy sat down with Lukianoff at FreedomFest to discuss the book, his work at FIRE, and what students can do to fight back.


Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by over 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks.

About 4 minutes.

Shot by Tracy Oppenhiemer and Alex Manning. Edited by Joshua Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

• Category

  News & Politics

[yakyakyak69]

Political "Correctness" is designed by Authoritarian "progressives" to shut down debate. When that doesn't work, they play the "special interest" card by charging racism, sexism, homophobia etc. the TRUTH is that anti-freedom "liberals" are simply looking for tools to "progress" toward ever more "Marxist/Fascist" Socialist Authoritarianism.

[BillyJoe1305]

Marxism and Marx himself belong in almost any economics class; that is not a point of contention between us. The phenomena I am referring to involves various other subjects. They push Marxist ideals, or ideals that lead the train of thought in that direction. Classes on human anatomy & medicine generally have no real business pushing single payer healthcare, for example.

Progressive environmentalism is not just the existence of climate change, it is about how dealing with it their way.

[Cosmicblast77]

The problem is where human emotions on different issues collide. People emotionalize their opinions so much that emotions collide , not reason. Professors as well cannot deal with an opposite opinion.

[goback3spaces]

Of course he's right, but I can't help thinking that money is at the bottom of this issue. Promoting diversity, infringing on free speech, appeasing stupid students, punishing students selectively, demonizing political/moral/religious viewpoints--it's all about hard cash. Keeping the money flowing into the university coffers.

[chris fuck off]

I have a free speech zone, it's my whole fucking country. Nobody is going to stop me from speaking my mind and if you get offended, fucking cry about, or take me up on it, I'll hear what you have say if you do the same for me. Don't shelter people from each other or we'll all just be stuck in our own little bubbles with no way to share ideas.

[Breton Lynn]

Here's an idea, STOP SENDING YOUR MONEY AND CHILDREN TO BE BRAINWASHED BY PEOPLE WHO HATE YOU!

[geppegep]

totally, political correctness, is a way to put down and ridicule anyone that haver different opinions than you and to defend themselves and control others, its the EXCACT opposite of common sense

[A different perspective]

He is spot on. Having your values, views, and beliefs challenged and questioned is what creates a healthy dynamic of various opinions. Limit free speech and you get less independents, and more partisan polarization.

[stutteraprose]

YakYak, you seem very one sided, which doesn't help the cause of liberty any bit. Both Libs and Conservatives have some points, it's this kind of one sidedness that draws division and gets nothing done to liberate people from too much control. Any kind of bad propaganda is not conductive to being free, unless you're free, and and the target of such propaganda isn't. We need to live, let live, and listen to different viewpoints.

[SkylitDriveFan123]

Every square inch of public property should be a "free speech zone"

[TheHigherVoltage]

No I didn't. You have comprehension problems...which would explain a few things.

[TheHigherVoltage]

At what point did I claim to believe anthropomorphic global warming? I said that all the evidence suggests both nature and man effect climate changes. I did not claim to believe or disbelieve any evidence I have not tested myself.

And his question was loaded - not proving a point. Not all facts require calculations to be proven. eg. It takes no calculations to understand how ice sheets form, how to date ice core samples, or how to visually observe the rapid melting of polar ice caps.