News & Articles

Detweiler: Our democracy should protect both the minority and the majority| Opinion

Read from the original source

Recently, the Tennessean published an op-ed by Daniel Smith and Adam Kissel entitled: “When should government infringe on academic freedom in a democracy?” The piece argues that when a public university is unaligned with the majority of the citizens who help fund it, the state is justified in intervening to fund neutral centers that encourage students to be open to diverse perspectives.

I grant Smith and Kissel’s argument that it is important for college students to engage with diverse perspectives— something already happening at public institutions across the state. That should, and already does, include perspectives held by a majority of Tennesseans.

But, when Smith and Kissel justify government intervention by referring to the “democratic principle of majority rule,” they overlook competing democratic principles that have shaped public education in the United States. Principles meant to prevent the rights of minorities from being trampled by majorities.

Given that Smith and Kissel’s argue for protecting and teaching minority viewpoints, this oversight risks profoundly undermining their stated goals. To better pursue those goals, let me fill in some relevant gaps. 

The evolution of public education in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the rights of minorities in the U.S. public education system. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a 1943 decision upholding the free speech rights of two young Jehovah’s Witnesses expelled from a public school for expressing their faith, “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was … to place [certain subjects] beyond the reach of majorities.” 

Recently, the Tennessean published an op-ed by Daniel Smith and Adam Kissel entitled: “When should government infringe on academic freedom in a democracy?” The piece argues that when a public university is unaligned with the majority of the citizens who help fund it, the state is justified in intervening to fund neutral centers that encourage students to be open to diverse perspectives.

I grant Smith and Kissel’s argument that it is important for college students to engage with diverse perspectives— something already happening at public institutions across the state. That should, and already does, include perspectives held by a majority of Tennesseans.

But, when Smith and Kissel justify government intervention by referring to the “democratic principle of majority rule,” they overlook competing democratic principles that have shaped public education in the United States. Principles meant to prevent the rights of minorities from being trampled by majorities.

Given that Smith and Kissel’s argue for protecting and teaching minority viewpoints, this oversight risks profoundly undermining their stated goals. To better pursue those goals, let me fill in some relevant gaps. 

 

The evolution of public education in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the rights of minorities in the U.S. public education system. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a 1943 decision upholding the free speech rights of two young Jehovah’s Witnesses expelled from a public school for expressing their faith, “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was … to place beyond the reach of majorities.”