Remarks by Secretary DeVos to the National Constitution Center's Annual Constitution Day Celebration
PHILADELPHIA – Following are the prepared remarks by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to commemorate
Constitution Day at the National Constitution Center's annual Constitution Day
celebration in Philadelphia.
Thank
you, Jeffrey Rosen, for that kind introduction. I am grateful for all that you
and the National Constitution Center do to increase awareness and understanding
of the greatest political document in history.
Before
we begin, I want to say that my heart goes out to all those impacted by
Hurricane Florence. I know there were those who wanted to be with us today, but
couldn’t because of the storms. Someone dear to me and to this Center – my
father-in-law Rich DeVos – would have liked to be here, too. He loved this
Center. Thank you for your prayers and heartfelt condolences during a tough
week for me and my family.
And
thank you for commemorating this day. Constitution Day brings focus to the
importance of civic education and its essential role in the health of our constitutional
republic.
Our
Constitution became the standard for freedom-loving people throughout the world
by design, not by accident. The Framers gathered just a few steps from here 231
years ago – willingly and freely – to discuss, debate and propose to the states
a national government that would restrain itself by empowering its people.
I’m
honored to be here to discuss some of the first restraints placed on government
by our Bill of Rights. Our “first freedoms” – and what we do with them – shape
our lives. The freedom to express ourselves – through our faith, through our speech,
through the press, through assembly or through petition – defines much of what
it means to be human.
This
freedom, preserved in our Declaration of Independence, comes from the truth that
our rights are endowed by our Creator, not by any man-made government.
And
for a time, that was… “self-evident.” But along the way, these Founding
principles have been taken for granted. Today, freedom – and the defense of it
– is needed more than ever, especially on our nation’s campuses.
The
fundamental mission of formal learning is to provide a forum for students to discover
who they are, why they’re here and where they want to go in life. These are
formative years: times and places to learn, to be challenged, to grow and to make
mistakes. Learning is enriched by what each individual student brings to that experience…
…
if – and only if – that environment is free and open.
Today,
precious few campuses can be described as such. As the purpose of learning is
forgotten, ignored or denied, we are inundated daily with stories of administrators
and faculty manipulating marketplaces of ideas.
Take
what recently happened to a student at Arkansas State University. She wanted to
recruit for a student organization she was founding, but soon learned it first
had to be approved by the university. Even then, she still had to apply for a permission
slip to distribute materials.
And
all of the activity had to occur within the confines of a “speech zone,” typically
obscure, small, cordoned-off corners of campus where free expression is “permitted.”
These so-called “free speech zones” are popping up on campuses across the
country, but they’re not at all free.
The
Arkansas State student proceeded to set up shop, and was promptly removed by a
university administrator and a campus police officer. She’s suing, and a judge
recently allowed the action to proceed.
Students
at Lawrence University in Wisconsin recently hosted a screening and discussion
of a documentary that warns of the threat modern sensibilities pose to
comedians, to their humor and ultimately, to their speech. When the event was
announced, it sparked passionate and disruptive protests which continued into
the screening itself.
As
a private university, Lawrence is not directly bound by the First Amendment. But
it had promised its students free expression “without fear of censorship or
retaliation.” Yet the university ultimately denied official recognition to the
student group that had hosted the screening. Ironically, the student group’s
name was “Students for Free Thought.”
The
screening at Lawrence University continued in spite of interruptions, but not
all student events are so lucky. An official student activities board at the
College of William & Mary, a public campus in Virginia, recently hosted a
director of the American Civil Liberties Union for a discussion on free speech.
Almost as soon as the event got underway, students rushed the stage and began
to shout down the ACLU representative, an organization typically allied with
many of the same causes shared by those who were shouting. The event never
resumed.
College
administrators vowed to remedy the situation, but the “heckler’s veto” had already
prevailed.
This
veto has been used against me, as well. More than a few institutions have been
unwilling to provide a forum for their students to discuss serious policy
matters that affect our country. I can and have found other forums, but what
about students who cannot?
Too
many administrators have been complicit in creating or facilitating a culture
that makes it easier for the “heckler” to win. One prevalent way is when
administrators charge students exorbitant fees to host an event or speaker they
arbitrarily deem “controversial.” This way, administrators can duck accusations
of censorship based on content and instead claim that reasonable “time, place
and manner” restrictions are appropriate.
But
just ask students at the University of Michigan for more on that. When students
invited Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., to speak on campus,
administrators forced the group to have public safety officers patrol the
event. There were no disruptions, but students were billed hundreds of dollars
for the security anyway. Students elsewhere have been forced to pony up
thousands in “speech taxes” for hosting speakers on campus.
The
examples could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: When students come
to learn, they too often encounter limits on what, when, where and how they
learn.
Administrators
too often attempt to shield students from ideas they subjectively decide are
“hateful” or “offensive” or “injurious” or ones they just don’t like. This
patronizing practice assumes students are incapable of grappling with, learning
from or responding to ideas with which they disagree.
Such
limits on freedom are sometimes subtle, other times they are noisy. But both
are rampant and both are bad.
And
all too often, students do not learn about our Constitution and our freedoms in
the first place. I think of a survey conducted some years ago by Philadelphia’s
own Museum of the American Revolution. It found then that 83 percent of
Americans did not have a basic understanding of our Founding. In fact, more
Americans knew that Michael Jackson wrote “Billie Jean” than knew who wrote the
Bill of Rights – or even that those Rights are amendments to our Constitution.
What
does that say about America’s schools? According to the 2014 Nation’s Report
Card, only 18 percent of eighth graders had a proficient knowledge of American
history. And in previous years, high school seniors did even worse: only 13
percent were proficient or better.
Just
think about the real-world consequences of those sobering statistics.
When
students don’t learn civics or how to think critically, should anyone be
surprised by the results of a recent Brookings Institution poll? It found that over
half of students surveyed think views different from their own aren’t protected
by the Constitution. Is it any wonder a growing number of students also say
it’s OK to shout someone down when they disagree? And is it any wonder too many
students even think that violence is acceptable if you disagree with someone?
Now,
disagreement about deeply held beliefs can certainly fuel passions and raise
decibels. But violence is never the answer. No one should confuse the right to
speak with an invitation to use force. Administrators may think they’re doing
their part to reduce tensions by censoring certain ideas, but in fact, doing so
often inflames them.
And
the way to remedy this threat to intellectual freedom on campuses is not
accomplished with government muscle. A solution won’t come from defunding an
institution of learning or merely getting the words of a campus policy exactly
right. Solutions won’t come from new laws from Washington, D.C or from a
“speech police” at the U.S. Department of Education.
Because
what’s happening on campuses today is symptomatic of a civic sickness.
The
ability to respectfully deliberate, discuss and disagree – to model the
behavior on display in Independence Hall – has been lost in too many places.
Some are quick to blame a “tribalization” of America where groupthink reigns.
Others point to the rise of social media where, under the cloak of anonymity, sarcasm
and disdain dominate.
Certainly,
none of that improves our discourse. But I think the issue is more fundamental
than that. And it’s one governments cannot solve.
The
issue is that we have abandoned truth.
Learning
is nothing if not a pursuit of truth. Truth – and the freedom to pursue it – is
for everyone, everywhere. Regardless of where you were born, who your parents
are or your economic situation, truth can be pursued and it can be known. Yet,
students are often told there is no such thing.
A
RAND Corporation study recently found an alarming “truth decay” in American
public discourse. One culprit was identified as a “relative volume and
resulting influence of opinion and personal experience over fact.”
I
think of the teacher who blithely wears a shirt that reads: “Find your truth.” Poor
advice that is plastered on the walls of the classroom for her unsuspecting
young students to absorb, as well.
That
notion has taken root in our relativistic culture. Surely we’ve all heard
something that goes like this: “You have your truth. And I have mine.” Folks
who embrace this notion insulate themselves from other people, other
experiences and other ideas. Serious conversation is over.
The
pernicious philosophy of relativism teaches that there is no objective truth. Nothing
is objectively good or objectively evil. “Truth” is only personal point of
view, fleeting circumstance and one’s own desires. And those views, those
experiences, those desires can be understood only by those who live them. Nothing
else and no one else matters.
And
that, I posit, is the threat that America’s campuses face today. Our
self-centered culture denies truth because acknowledging it would mean certain
feelings or certain ideas could be wrong. But no one wants to be wrong. It is
much easier to feel comfortable in saying there is no truth. Nothing that could
challenge what we want to believe.
But
learning is about thinking, reasoned argument and it’s also about discovering
facts. If ultimately there are no facts – if there is no objective truth – then
there is no real learning.
Abandoning
truth creates confusion. Confusion leads to censorship. And censorship inevitably
invites chaos on campuses, and elsewhere.
This
is not simply a matter for academics to debate. Parents are watching how
institutions of learning are resolving these controversies, and many don’t like
what they see. Recent surveys indicate public support for colleges and
universities has declined over the last few years.
But
it doesn’t have to be this way. There are alternatives.
Let
me offer a few thoughts in this regard.
Begin
with yourself. In our fast-paced, noisy world, it is healthy to develop an
interior life. Be still, pray, reflect, review, contemplate. Starting with
ourselves – with introspection – would help us approach each other with more respect
and grace.
Then
listen – really listen! – and then personally engage those with whom we
disagree. It’s easy to be nasty hiding behind screens and Twitter handles. It’s
not so easy when we are face to face. When we are, we more quickly recognize
that behind each strongly-held idea are heartbeats, emotions, experiences… in
other words, a real person.
And
if we use our two ears proportionally to our one mouth, we can speak with
conviction when we’re certain and listen with intent when we’re not, humbly
leaving open the possibility that even when we feel quite certain, we might be quite
wrong.
We
would also do well to rightly understand the responsibility that goes along
with freedom. Yes, free speech is both a right and a responsibility. Saint John
Paul II said it well: “freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in
having the right to do what we ought.”
His
reminder is fitting today, because… we’re not all saints! We won’t always do
the right thing. We will make mistakes. We will say the wrong things and subscribe
to the wrong ideas.
There
are bad ideas. I’ve had a few, and heard more than a few myself. But the
exchange of ideas should be conducted openly, where good ones can rightly
defeat bad ones – with open words and open dialogue, not with closed fists or
closed minds. John Stuart Mill wrote that anyone “who knows only his own side
of the case, knows little of that.”
To
that end, we can embrace a Golden Rule of free speech: seeking to understand as
to be understood. That is to say, a willingness to learn from any idea, even
ones with which you disagree or ones that aren’t your own. It’s also the humility
to listen with the understanding that you yourself might be mistaken.
A
responsible use of free speech, in this sense, is a desire to prove why your
ideas are better for your neighbor because you love your neighbor, not because
you only want to prove him or her wrong.
I
think often – even more so this past week – of phrases my father-in-law used
all the time. Among them are: “I’m wrong.” “I’m sorry.” “Thank you.” “I respect
you.” And “I love you.”
Some
folks get this right. Princeton’s Robby George and Harvard’s Cornel West don’t
agree on much. But the two professors recently wrote an instructive statement
about freedom of thought and expression.
“All
of us,” they wrote, “should be willing – even eager – to engage with anyone who
is prepared to do business in the currency of truth-seeking discourse by
offering reasons, marshaling evidence, and making arguments.”
The
two professors respect the freedoms of students to express themselves through
peaceful demonstrations, but, they ask, “Might it not be better to listen
respectfully and try to learn from a speaker with whom I disagree? Might it
better serve the cause of truth-seeking to engage the speaker in frank civil
discussion?”
Those
are important questions. At least one university is leading the way in
addressing them. Since its founding, the University of Chicago has always
affirmed a commitment to free and open inquiry. A committee there recently
reaffirmed that commitment in a statement of principles – not new policies or
codes.
In
its report, the committee wrote that the University “guarantees…the broadest
possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” The committee
rightly suggests “It is for the individual members of the University community,
not for the University as an institution, to make…judgments for themselves, and
to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and
vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.”
More
institutions would do well to adopt the University of Chicago’s statement and
embrace its approach.
Others
look to Yale’s 1974 “Woodward report” on free expression. Without sacrificing
the pursuit of truth, the report’s authors explain, “[an institution of
learning] cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of
friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect.” Instead, those
priorities are “responsibilities assumed by each member of the university
community, along with the right to enjoy free expression.”
Too
many institutions have tried to pursue truth and harmony, but end up failing in
both. Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and professor at New York University,
argues that institutions of learning cannot pledge to pursue truth and at the
same time oblige “a welcoming atmosphere,” “civility” or even “social justice.”
The
latter are to be voluntarily embraced by each member of the community. A school,
on the other hand, must make a choice as to its purpose. Let’s call it “Haidt’s
choice.” Pursue truth or pursue harmony. An institution of learning cannot be
both a forum for all ideas and an advocate for some at the expense of others.
And
learners have a choice to make, as well. No school and no government can force its
people to be responsible. That’s something individuals must freely and
consciously choose on an ongoing basis.
True
freedom is ultimately ordered toward virtue and responsibility. Freedom
detached from truth and disconnected from virtue isn’t freedom at all.
America
is exceptional because of her freedoms. Not simply because they are in the
Constitution’s text, but because they are an intrinsic part of who we are. The
world knows that, and craves it. Thousands upon thousands of people risk
everything to escape tyranny and flee to the United States for a better life…
for freedom. But “if we lose freedom here,” Ronald Reagan warned, “there is no
place to escape to.”
America
is the hope for the world. Let’s resolve to get back to believing in and living
out our freedoms in ways our Framers – and our Creator – designed. May we forever
cherish, teach, exercise and protect our God-given freedoms. Thank you for
having me here today. I look forward to our conversation.
###
|
