Recently, a Harvard Law professor suggested that disinviting a speaker is an exercise of free speech, according to a report from The College Fix. This assertion is sheer balderdash—a blatant misrepresentation of the fundamental principle of free speech. True free speech necessitates defending a marketplace of ideas where all viewpoints can be aired, debated, and scrutinized. When a professor of law—someone expected to champion the principles of intellectual rigor—advocates for silencing opposing voices, it sets a dangerous precedent for academia.
This professor believes he has the right to impose a heckler’s veto, silencing others under the pretense of exercising his own free speech rights. Encouraging disinvitations not only erodes this fundamental principle but also creates a chilling effect that reverberates across campus. It implicitly tells students and faculty dissenting opinions are unwelcome, incongruent ideas are better left unspoken, and conformity is more valuable than genuine intellectual exploration. This is the very antithesis of what a university should stand for—a place of robust discussion and the pursuit of truth. This professor’s logic not only misrepresents what free speech means, but it reveals a deeper rot within the ivory towers of American academia.
Harvard, though a private institution, receives a substantial amount of federal funding. Given that Harvard receives nearly $600 million in federal funding—one-eighth of its total revenue and 66% of its research funding—it is only reasonable that taxpayers hold the university accountable to protect the principles of free inquiry. When an institution is so heavily funded by public dollars, it has a responsibility to uphold the values of free inquiry and open debate. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to underwrite academic fiefdoms that stifle free speech in favor of ideological conformity.
The fact that a Harvard Law professor believes disinviting speakers is a form of free speech is troubling enough. The deeper issue is that such a position, taken by someone wielding authority and influence within one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, has a chilling effect on students and faculty who may hold differing viewpoints. By normalizing the disinvitation of speakers based on ideological disagreement, this professor implicitly supports a culture that prioritizes intellectual conformity over open discourse—a practice that strikes at the heart of academic freedom.
I witnessed the early stirrings of cancel culture years ago at my alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many voices, like this Harvard professor, worked both overtly and covertly to stifle conservative political and religious perspectives. Just as troubling were those who stood by in silence, shrinking from the duty to defend intellectual diversity and free expression. In stark contrast, the late Professor Daniel Pollitt embodied the true spirit of academic freedom and held a profound reverence for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I had the privilege of interacting with Professor Pollitt during my time at UNC, and I was awe-struck by his unwavering zeal for free speech—not just for views he agreed with, but especially for those he vehemently opposed. He understood that the strength of a democracy lies in the ability to engage with diverse viewpoints, standing firm against censorship in all its forms. Simply put, Pollitt was a steadfast believer in free expression for all. His legacy serves as a poignant reminder of what true academic freedom looks like, contrasting sharply with the current trend of silencing dissent in favor of ideological conformity. Voices like Professor Pollitt’s are needed now more than ever.
If institutions like Harvard, which receive substantial financial lifeblood from federal funds, permit such practices without accountability, the consequences extend far beyond the university. These reach into the larger public sphere, where the stifling of dissent undermines the very foundation of free expression. Universities must be bastions of open debate, not echo chambers of permissible thought. By advocating for disinvitations, this professor has effectively embraced a view that weakens the essential core of academic freedom itself.
It is incumbent on institutions like Harvard to uphold their duty to students, faculty, and the public to maintain an atmosphere that fosters free and open inquiry—not one that seeks to shield certain ideas from scrutiny. Free speech is not the right to silence others but instead the responsibility to defend open discourse, even when it is inconvenient, uncomfortable, or one you personally oppose. If universities fail in this duty, they fail not just their communities, but also the principles they were founded to uphold.
Charlton Allen is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Salient and the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc. Learn more about him at charltonallen.org.
