Trump’s executive order related to free speech on campuses risks dangerous precedent

President Donald Trump signs a lot of executive orders, many of which go unreported or unremarked upon in the shadow of his very public and very distracting Twitter episodes. But, students, faculty, staff and alumni of higher education institutions should be paying closer attention to one of Trump’s most recent executive orders, signed March 21, titled “Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.”

The executive order, Trump said during a signing ceremony, responds to a growing trend of public universities not protecting full access to public spaces for groups to speak or demonstrate, and he declared the order a “historic action to defend American students and American values that have been under siege.”

The order ties federal funding for grants and research to a school’s ability to demonstrate that it protects First Amendment rights to free speech and access on campus but does not name an agency to monitor free speech, nor the definitions of free speech. It also does not link federal financial aid to funding, which might or might not be withheld should an institution be found in non-compliance.

The order opens a can of worms that should concern the entire political spectrum; though this order doesn’t specify an agency to define or police free speech on public campuses, it comes dangerously close to doing so and creates a precedent that could make it easier and more likely to do so in the future.

In a statement on his official website, Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee and the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, mostly applauds the executive order, stating that, “Colleges should punish hecklers who veto free speech, and stop coddling students to protect them from disagreeable points of view.”

But Alexander goes on to caution the idea of the Executive Branch or Congress creating legislation defining or enforcing free speech on campuses.

“I don’t want to see Congress or the President or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus,” Alexander wrote. “The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech. Federal courts define and enforce it. The Department of Justice can weigh in. Conservatives don’t like it when judges try to write laws, and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution.”

Alexander’s statement brings into focus one of the main concerns with this executive order: A system for protecting free speech already exists. We call it the Constitution.

Colleges and universities have a legal responsibility to protect and encourage open and free discourse on campuses. And, if it is found that they have failed to uphold those responsibilities, they can and have been challenged through judicial and legislative processes.

So, then, if higher education institutions are already required by law, by the Constitution of the United States of America, to protect the First Amendment rights of their students, staff and faculty, and if avenues to challenge and redress violations of these rights exist, then why was this executive order even necessary?

The idea behind this executive order deserves attention. Protecting free speech and First Amendment rights always do. And, one cannot ignore the refreshing change in tone this order demonstrates for Trump, whose notable recent past involvements with the free speech debate includes canceling the press pass for a reporter who asked questions he didn’t like, decrying any media source that says something negative about him and arguing that an athlete conducting peaceful protest against police brutality should be fired from his job.

But, the fact remains that universities already answer to the law, in regards to protecting free speech. There is no demonstrated legitimate need for this executive order — unless Trump intentionally meant to make it easier for the Executive Branch to directly affect legislation in the future.

That aspect, specifically, requires close attention by everyone, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. The legislative process may be frustrating to watch as Congress dwells for years on key issues and produces less grand scale results than the public expects.

But, it prevents any one branch of the government from being able to single-handedly dictate the law of the land. That’s why the drafters of the Constitution established the three branches of the U.S. government — to maintain a system of checks and balances that serves to protect the American people.

To allow any president to even hint at dictating legislation through executive order establishes a dangerous precedent and deserves the closest of scrutiny.

For more information, check out:

Executive order threatens loss of federal funding for colleges failing to follow free speech policies

President Donald Trump aims to improve free inquiry, transparency, and accountability at colleges and universities through Executive Order 13864.

Why hate speech must be defended for the sake of America

One of the most popular amendments to the U.S. Constitution is the first one that allows American citizens the right to freedom of speech. Protecting free speech means supporting everyone’s right to speak freely – even if it is as abhorrent as hate speech.