On Monday, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education renamed itself the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and kickstarted a $75 million dollar campaign to increase litigation, education, and research to strengthen the culture of free speech in this country. Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, says that advocating free speech outside of educational environments is a necessary step for protecting free speech on campuses.
Speaking with National Review, Robert Shibley, executive director of FIRE, noted a distinct negative change in the national climate for free speech that precipitated the expansion of the organization. In particular, the increased demands for people to be silenced on social media and in the mainstream media in general have vitiated discourse in this country. He argues that FIRE saw an imminent need for “an organization that could, in a scrupulously non-partisan way, advance not just the law on free speech, but a culture of free speech in the United States where people actually feel comfortable to speak out regardless of their viewpoint.” He sees the expansion of FIRE as a step towards a much more extensive national organization that has the resources to litigate First Amendment cases ranging from corporate speech to qualified immunity. Many Americans, Shibley believes, yearn for an environment that invites open and honest dialogue.
The expansion of the organization reflects a direct challenge to the American Civil Liberties Union. Historically, the ACLU had been the strongest and most fervent protector of free-speech and First Amendment rights in the United States. It was responsible for virtually every landmark First Amendment case in the 1920s, successfully opposed book bannings, and won the Supreme Court case that determined the Internet was a free- speech zone. The ACLU defended the free-speech rights of Nation of Islam members, the Ku Klux Klan, labor organizers, and civil-rights advocates. However, critics have argued that the ACLU national organization has, over the past decade, become increasingly partisan and has only fought for the free-speech rights of liberals and left-leaning individuals. For instance, renowned former ACLU lawyer David Goldberger has noted how lawyers of the ACLU believed that members of the far-right were not worthy of free-speech protections. Goldberger, who is Jewish and famously defended the free-speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s, is profoundly discouraged by the new direction the civil-rights organization is taking. Goldberger is not alone. Ira Glasser, the former director of the ACLU, has said that the organization sacrificed its original and laudable mission — to protect civil rights for everyone — in pursuit of progressive causes that ostensibly protect the rights of minorities.
FIRE, on the other hand, has proven willing to protect free-speech rights for everyone – the true essence of freedom of expression. While progressive critics argue that FIRE is a veneer for conservatives, the organization routinely litigates against campuses that violate the First Amendment rights of both conservatives and liberals. For instance, this May, FIRE successfully defended the free-speech rights of the College Republicans at Eckerd College when the student government denied the organization recognition based on its president’s social-media posts. Just a day before, FIRE defended a professor of Soka University of America who was accused by the administration of teaching materials from black, brown, and queer authors that were “triggering.” FIRE has demonstrated in both rhetoric and action that it equally and fairly protects the free-speech rights of those with varying political ideologies — unlike the ACLU.
As a previous FIRE intern myself, I can personally attest to the impartiality and integrity of the FIRE organization. I witnessed conservative staff strongly defend the free-speech rights of progressive students and vice-versa. Despite the allegations that FIRE has a conservative bias, many of the lawyers and staff I interacted with during my internship expressed liberal and progressive views. Regardless, they strongly believed in protecting the free-speech rights of people with whom they vehemently disagreed. FIRE is the necessary alternative free-speech organization to the ACLU because it advocates for free speech completely, not selectively. The ACLU national organization fails to protect the free-speech rights of everyone, thereby failing to live up to the true principle of free speech. To truly improve national discourse, offensive speech from both sides of the political spectrum cannot be censored. The old adage, “the best response to bad speech is more speech” is the best path forward.