Political groups speak on recent free speech discussions at Clemson

The conversation surrounding free speech on Clemson’s campus has become a source of controversy in recent weeks following the death of Charlie Kirk and the actions of the University faculty and administration that followed.

The recent firing of multiple professors has sparked national attention, including a response from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

FIRE claims it is “the nation’s leading defender of fundamental rights on college campuses,” dedicated to promoting “the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture,” according to their website.

After the dismissal of three professors over online engagement in regards to Kirk’s death, FIRE submitted a letter to the office of the president on Sept. 12 urging the University to uphold free speech. In the letter, FIRE said that Clemson should not reward “community outrage,” no matter how “ugly or overwhelming” the speech may be.

“If Clemson University chooses to ignore its free speech obligations and punish protected

speech, it will open the door to censorship of a limitless array of views on campus, while chilling

other faculty and students from sharing their opinions,” the letter continued.

According to FIRE’s most recent survey of free speech on college campuses, Clemson ranks No. 13 among 257 colleges and universities judged on their policies regarding free speech, with a score of 71.9 out of 100.

In the survey, 41% of Clemson students say they “have self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month,” 64% of students believe that “shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases” and 31% of students think that “using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.”

Each university’s metrics are further broken down into six letter-graded categories, with Clemson receiving a D in comfort expressing ideas, a B-minus in disruptive conduct, a C in openness, an F in self-censorship, a D-minus in administrative support and an F in political tolerance.

In its Facility Use Policy, Clemson University upholds the rights of individuals and groups affiliated with Clemson University “to discuss, express, advocate or examine issues or ideas within constitutionally valid limitations.”

On Feb. 3, 2023, the University adopted the core principles stated in the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression from the University of Chicago.

Clemson’s social media guidelines, created by University Relations in 2020, outline that Clemson “respects freedom of speech and has certain obligations under the First Amendment and related laws.”

These guidelines also maintain that social media platforms cannot be suppressed due to content or viewpoints presented that involve speech or expression, with exceptions to posts that “break laws or do not contain speech protected by the First Amendment.” One example of an exception includes “speech inciting imminent violence.”

The scope of this policy applies to “all Clemson faculty, staff and students who are employed by Clemson in any capacity.”

Jack Lyle, president of Clemson College Republicans, walked The Tiger through the organization’s process of enacting its free speech rights here at Clemson.

The organization works closely with campus reservations, specifically Kristi Cox, director of campus reservations and events, Doug Hallenbeck, vice president of student affairs, and George Smith, senior associate vice president of student affairs. Lyle said he is in constant communication with these University officials, sending almost “four or five emails a day.”

Every event, protest or tabling that CCR holds goes through “official channels, and anytime that there’s any miscommunication … the University is always very understanding,” Lyle told The Tiger in an interview.

He continued, explaining that the organization is expected to host three gubernatorial candidates this semester and that the University is “more than happy and really very excited” to allow CCR to bring them to campus.

Lyle explained that working with the University is a “very fluid” and “low-friction” process. Before CCR utilizes the campus as a forum, the organization emails Cox to make sure it’s obtaining information accurately.

In some instances, other organizations struggle to reserve spaces on campus, including the Clemson College Democrats.

Enid McDonald, the organization’s president, explained that recently, CCD has been filling out the forms required for tabling, but that it takes “a long time for (campus reservations) to get back to me.”

Once campus reservations responds, McDonald said she “would get an email back saying, ‘hey, that date isn’t available,’” and she would ultimately need to request a new date.

McDonald also noted that once she would reserve a spot for tabling, campus reservations would “have no reservation” for CCD to obtain a table and chairs. campus reservations was usually able to accommodate the organization at that time, but CCD’s submission was not coming through as a reservation.

When the organization tabled with Indivisible earlier this semester, faculty members of campus reservations “came by table to table to make sure everything was okay,” McDonald told The Tiger.

The Tiger also spoke with Charlie Clontz, president of the Clemson chapter of Turning Point USA, about his thoughts on the University dismissing the aforementioned professors, and the protests that followed on campus in recent weeks.

Clontz said that Clemson TPUSA never saw the professors’ actions and subsequent dismissals “as a free speech issue.” Instead, the organization saw the professors’ actions as a safety concern, especially for students who “share the beliefs” of Kirk.

However, he believes the protests that followed were within the participants’ rights. Clontz also spoke on his experiences regarding the state of free speech at Clemson.

“I think that there was a period where it was a little bit concerning in terms of how students felt,” Clontz explained.

On Oct. 8, a group of students along with Indivisible Clemson, initiated a silent protest in support of the dismissed professors’ reinstatements. Allison Curl, a senior biosystems engineering major, was one of the participants in the protest. She and a couple of other students were in charge of reserving the protest’s tabling locations, and noted that they did not receive “any pushback” from the University.

Curl mentioned that she met with Shawn Jones, associate director of reservation services, several times “to understand exactly how to properly” execute what the protest wanted to accomplish. It took a group of students to persistently check in with campus reservations to get all of their locations approved.

Curl also told The Tiger that she hasn’t seen any implications that the University has violated students’ right to freedom of speech during her time at Clemson.

Further, Lyle believes that “free speech is alive and well” in the wake of recent events that have occurred on campus.

“I would say free speech is dangerous, and it’s a little limited right now compared to how it used to be” during the spring semester, according to McDonald.

Finally, Clontz said that “in the last couple of years or so, I think at least in my time at Clemson, I felt pretty good about the general state of things there.”