On September 25, Boston College Law School’s Federalist Society hosted two legal thinkers to debate the role universities have in restricting free speech on campus. BC Law Professor Kent Greenfield and Harvey Silverglate, criminal defense and civil rights attorney and cofounder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), were the participants.
The Federalist Society was introduced at the event as a group of conservatives and libertarians who believe that the founders created the government to protect individual freedom and that the Constitution emphasizes the separation of powers. The organization does not take public policy positions, nor engage in activism, but provides spaces to have debates and discussions on campus about important issues to students.
Both speakers began the debate with brief introductions of themselves and their positions on free speech.
Silverglate described himself as a free-speech absolutist, stating he differed from the Supreme Court because, while the Court has exceptions to free speech—such as those for libel and slander—Silverglate believes there should be no such exceptions.
Additionally, Silverglate believes that there should be no restrictions on hate speech. He spoke from his experience at Princeton University in the early 1960s, where he was called several slurs as a result of his Jewish heritage. This, Silverglate said, helped him confirm “on whom I should not turn my back.”
“Hate speech has an important function in society, and the idea that it would be banned on some campuses is absurd, counterproductive, very dangerous,” Silverglate said. “So I make the argument for absolute free speech protection.”
Greenfield began his response with an overview of the recent history of the free speech debate, which, prior to the past year, had been concentrated on the left side of the political spectrum.
“I think now you’ve seen probably the most anti-free speech administration that we’ve seen in a decade, right?” Greenfield said. “You’ve got the immigration policies of this administration being run through sort of a viewpoint screen. You see funding for colleges run through viewpoint screens. You’ve seen FCC attacks on free speech in various ways.”
Greenfield then explained his view of the free speech debate on college campuses, highlighting first that public universities and private universities have different relationships to students’ free speech, with public universities having a stronger duty to uphold free speech rights, and private universities—such as Boston College—having the ability to hold students’ rights. The rights you may have on the street, he said, may be different from the rights given to students in an academic setting.
“Of course, universities are places where truth is sought,” Greenfield continued. “We have an obligation to seek out truth, and speech can be conducive or is essential for that pursuit. At the same time, universities are also communities of learning and education. And much like you don’t want to have a hostile work environment in the workplace, because it makes people not be able to achieve what they can in the workplace, hostile learning environments have effects on learning as well.”
Greenfield highlighted several “case studies” where students in a university setting had been punished for instances of hate speech, both verbal and symbolic, including a 2015 incident where University of Oklahoma fraternity brothers were expelled after a video recording of them singing a racist chant that included hateful slurs and references to lynching surfaced. He said that had he been an administrator at those universities, he likely would have also punished the students.
In response to Greenfield’s analysis, Silverglate stated that Greenfield “subscribes to society’s terror” of using the n-word, a slur used to harm Black individuals. Silverglate used the slur in full, and used it again to state the title of a book written by a Harvard colleague. Silverglate said that when he used the word at a prior speech at Yale, several members of the community stood up and walked out.
Silvergate repeated his experiences of being called slurs while at Princeton, and his belief in allowing hate speech as a way to find out who is racist and potentially dangerous.
In response, moderator Keyon Rostamnezhad, a 3L Law Student Association representative, proposed that the students who walked out at Yale had engaged in their own form of symbolic speech, critiquing the use of the slur in “the absence of an ability to regulate that.”
“Respectfully, I will use my First Amendment rights to commend the people who used their voice to get up when they heard a word they didn’t like to hear,” Rostamnezhad said. “And the using of our voices to discourage hate speech, personally, is totally fine in that they’re using their First Amendment right to criticize or to express how disgusted they are to hear that word used.”
Rostamnezhad then opened the floor to questions. Questions from the audience included a discussion of where the line was in terms of enforcing consequences for hate speech. Silverglate said that people have a right to protest speech, but not to utilize official power to restrict speech.
He also stated that members of a free society have a responsibility to develop a thick skin in response to hateful speech.
Greenfield disagreed. “We all experience words in our own lives that are quite painful, and I don’t think growing a thick skin is a constitutional requirement,” Greenfield said. “Other democracies, for example, don’t require people who are at the receiving end of hate speech to grow thick skins.”
In the wake of the event, members of the BC Law community expressed their concerns about the usage of slurs by Silverglate. In response, BC Law Professor and the Federalist Society Faculty Advisor Daniel Lyons said that “none of us expected Mr. Silverglate to use the words that he did. BC Law is committed to free speech and recognizes the importance of protecting the right to express one’s views, even when unpopular. We also seek to explore difficult topics in a reasoned and thoughtful way, both out of respect for the community and as a matter of good advocacy. In this case, Mr. Silverglate’s words, which were unnecessary to his argument, closed the hearts and minds of his audience to his ideas. It’s difficult to have a constructive dialogue with someone you’ve offended. It’s a good reminder of the scripture that ‘all things are lawful, but not all things are edifying.’ I thought Keyon’s response [as moderator] reflected the best of the BC Law community: He thoughtfully engaged problematic speech with more speech.”
BC Law Dean Odette Lienau added, “Our organizations and community stakeholders invite external speakers with the goal of informing thoughtful discussion. And it is absolutely essential both to protect free speech and to debate its contours, especially in this pivotal political moment.” She continued, “In my personal view, racial slurs should have no place in these debates. They are not consistent with the values we uphold as members of the BC Law community, which are grounded in recognizing the dignity of all, especially in our interactions with each other.”
The Law School has planned a community conversation, including faculty participants and facilitators, to allow the community to come together and discuss the issues raised at—and after—the event.
Photograph by Andres Leiva ’26