Example Image
Civitas Outlook
Topic
Constitutionalism
Published on
Oct 7, 2025
Contributors
Larry Arnn
Hillsdale College

Speech on Campus Must Build the Academic Community

Contributors
Larry Arnn
Larry Arnn
Larry Arnn
Summary
A college or university can only serve its high purpose if it understands the principle of free speech as a moral and political principle and not as an end in itself.

Summary
A college or university can only serve its high purpose if it understands the principle of free speech as a moral and political principle and not as an end in itself.

Listen to this article
Editor's Note: Larry Arnn responds to Hadley Arkes' lead essay "Free Speech and the American University: A Proposal."

I agree with my old friend Hadley Arkes that a college or university can only serve its high purpose if it understands the principle of free speech as America’s founders understood it — as a moral and political principle — and not in an absolutist way or as an end in itself.  

Indeed, as president of Hillsdale College, I have had the recent occasion to address this issue because the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — an organization that shows no understanding of the purpose of education — has seen fit to issue public warnings about freedom of speech at Hillsdale.  

FIRE has acknowledged that Hillsdale deserves high marks for “tolerance for speakers” of diverse opinions, “student comfort in expressing ideas,” “administration support for free speech,” and campus “openness” to discussing challenging topics. It admits that Hillsdale has never punished scholars for their speech or disinvited speakers from campus. 

What then does it see as Hillsdale’s sin, such that prospective students need to be warned? It is that Hillsdale’s “policies clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.”  

We plead guilty. A college’s purpose, after all, is not merely to sponsor speech. A college’s purpose, through speaking and thinking—the two go together and distinguish the human being from the beast—is to teach students to think and speak better in search of knowledge.  

How does a college go about that? The very word “college” means partnership or community. College is a place where people come together to use their capacities for speech and thought to understand ultimate things. It is part of human nature that we do this better as a group. But we cannot do it if we are screaming, if we are hostile, or if we babble.

Disagreements at a college are not only inevitable, they are standard. But learning is not combat or any form of lobbying or demonstration. Every time we learn, we change our minds. But we must do so cooperatively. To the utmost extent possible, we must do so as friends.

Our speech code at Hillsdale College — so objectionable to FIRE — derives from these points. Members of the Hillsdale community may assert and defend any argument they conceive, as long as they do so in a way that is civil, academic, and conducive to thought and deliberation. This rule is old, proven by time and thought.

All the people who study and work at Hillsdale choose it knowingly. At the point of becoming a student, faculty, or staff member, each acknowledges the age-old purposes of the College and agrees to assist rather than obstruct the College in pursuing them. They learn in advance about Hillsdale’s speech code and every other fundamental practice of the College.

This does not mean that we at the College may not argue about these things. That too is both inevitable and standard. How does one come to understand a thing except by thinking and talking about it? But this must not turn into chaos—although sometimes it seems mildly and happily chaotic—because all here understand that the condition of our learning together is to have a common mission.

Hillsdale’s purposes as described in its founding document are learning, character, faith, and freedom. We often argue about the meaning of these things. But we consider them transcendent goods—a sin in FIRE’s book, where freedom of speech is the only transcendent “value.”

The error in FIRE’s way of thinking — and the way of thinking of the morally incoherent university presidents Hadley refers to — was thrown into stark relief by the outbreak of campus demonstrations celebrating the carnage of October 7, 2023.  

We do not regulate speech at Hillsdale College. We distinguish it from non-speech. Incoming students sign a two-sentence Honor Code:

A Hillsdale College student is honorable in conduct, honest in word and deed, dutiful in study and service, and respectful of the rights of others. Through education the student rises to self-government.

Understanding these words, our students easily recognize that demonstrations calling for the destruction of Israel are the antithesis of speaking in a way that is conducive to thought and deliberation. They are destructive of the purpose of a college or a university—and of the purpose of America as defined by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the semi-quincentennial of which we celebrate next year.  

Larry P. Arnn is the 12th president of Hillsdale College, where he is also a professor of politics and history.

10:13
1x
10:13
More articles

Freedom, Liberalism, and Civic Communion

Pursuit of Happiness
Nov 21, 2025

A Fairer Tax System?

Pursuit of Happiness
Nov 21, 2025
View all

Join the newsletter

Receive new publications, news, and updates from the Civitas Institute.

Sign up
More on

Constitutionalism

Amicus Brief: Hon. William P. Barr and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey in Support of Petitioners

Former AGs Barr and Mukasey Cite Civitas in a SCOTUS Brief

Michael Toth
Constitutionalism
Sep 22, 2025
Rational Judicial Review: Constitutions as Power-sharing Agreements, Secession, and the Problem of Dred Scott

Judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.

John Yoo
Constitutionalism
Sep 15, 2025
Amicus Brief: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish

Civitas Research Fellow Michael Toth's work was cited in a Supreme Court brief.‍

Michael Toth
Constitutionalism
Sep 11, 2025
Epstein & Yoo: Amicus Brief in Supreme Court of Maryland

Civitas Senior Research Fellows Richard Epstein and John Yoo, alongside the Mountain States Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Maryland.

Richard Epstein, John Yoo
Constitutionalism
Jul 24, 2025

The Libertarian

The inimitable Richard Epstein offers his unique perspective on national developments in public policy and the law.

View all
** items

Law Talk

Welcome to Law Talk with Richard Epstein and John Yoo. Our show is hosted by Charles C. W. Cooke.

View all
** items
What’s Wrong with a Military Campaign Against the Drug Trade

Trump’s boat strikes against the cartels risk crossing the line between law enforcement and war.

John Yoo
Constitutionalism
Sep 24, 2025
The Long History of Presidential Discretion

The Framers did not expect Congress to preauthorize every use of force or to manage military campaigns.

John Yoo
Constitutionalism
Sep 19, 2025
Why Trump’s ‘Emergency’ Tariffs Won’t Fly

The trade deficit isn’t a sudden surprise, short in duration, and great in harm: the usual characteristics of an emergency.

John Yoo
Constitutionalism
Sep 2, 2025
Democracy in Britain: The Lords’ Work

Part 2: How the “hereditary peers” enhance lawmaking and support the soft power of the UK.

David L. Leal
Constitutionalism
Aug 6, 2025

Epstein: Executive Power & Authoritarianism

Constitutionalism
Sep 17, 2025
1:05

Epstein: Tim Kaine’s Misunderstanding of Natural Rights

Constitutionalism
Sep 15, 2025
1:05

Why Postliberalism Is Gaining Ground: Phillip Muñoz on America’s Founding Values

Constitutionalism
Aug 7, 2025
1:05

Richard Epstein: The Constitution, Parental Rights, and More

Constitutionalism
Jul 7, 2025
1:05

Yuval Levin on How the Constitution Unified our Nation – and Could Again

Constitutionalism
Mar 27, 2025
1:05
No items found.
No items found.
Supreme Court Term Preview: Presidential Power in Two Dimensions

Aaron Nielson offers a roadmap to the Supreme Court’s upcoming tests of presidential power, from interbranch conflicts to internal executive control.

Aaron L. Nielson
Constitutionalism
Nov 18, 2025
Judge Oldham's Olson Lecture: Yet Another FedSoc Debate or an Existential Challenge?

Judge Andrew S. Oldham’s Olson lecture reminds us that what worked for the Federalist Society in 1985 may not work in 2025 — and almost certainly won’t in 2065.

Josh Blackman
Constitutionalism
Nov 12, 2025
Ban the Filibuster — But Only for Continuing Budget Resolutions

Suspending the filibuster for continuing resolutions may have benefited Republicans this time, but the reform makes sense regardless of which party holds power.

Richard Epstein
Constitutionalism
Nov 12, 2025
Will the Unitary Executive Swallow the Independent Judiciary?

Hamilton’s warnings about the potential collapse of an independent judiciary may well be realized if the unitary executive theory continues to fester.

Richard Epstein
Constitutionalism
Nov 10, 2025
No items found.