This poll of college students caught my eye:
Let’s take the abortion question first. I strongly support my campus allowing speakers to advocate banning abortion. Does that mean my views coincide with 18% of college students? I doubt that. I suspect that either far more than 18% of students agree with me, or far fewer. Let’s start with the “far fewer” hypothesis.
One thing I notice is that very few people say they strongly support allowing controversial speakers of any sort, whether advocating right wing racial theories of intelligence or left wing claims that all whites are racist. College students just don’t seem to like controversial speakers. Now let’s think about those 18% that are completely OK with pro-life speakers. I suspect that this group is heavily skewed toward people with pro-life views. I can’t prove that, but I’m pretty confident that this is the case.
I happen to be pro-choice. I suspect that only a tiny number of students say they are pro-choice and also supportive of allowing pro-life speakers. And I suspect that most of the pro-lifers within that 18% would turn on a dime if the speaker advocated no restrictions on abortion. In other words, perhaps only around 1% or 2% of college students believe in free speech even for views they disagree with, at least if one believes this interpretation of the poll. That means that rational people like you and I are really weird.
Now let’s consider an alternative (more optimistic) view. Maybe the students aren’t actually expressing their views carefully. College students are busy and when someone stops them on the quad with a poll question about this or that, they quickly answer based on their general view on the topic. They think, “racial supremacy is bad”, or “a law banning all abortions is bad”, or “censorship is bad.” Then the opinion they offer isn’t really a considered opinion on censorship, it’s more like a gut reaction to the general subject being considered.
Do I have any evidence for this? Yes, in 11 years of blogging I find that people often confuse one issue with another. Thus if I say that Roe v. Wade was decided on highly questionable grounds, people immediately assume that my comments pertain to the wisdom of banning abortion, not the legal justification for the ruling. They confuse procedural issues with policy issues. Not just once and a while, but all the time. And keep in mind that blog commenters tend to be much smarter than the average college student.
Here’s another piece of evidence for my claim. Students say that they want to censor speakers who advocate censorship. But how likely is it that this is their actual belief? If The Onion did a satirical story mocking that poll result, many college students would probably find the story amusing. They might say, “Yes, OK, I don’t actually want to censor someone advocating censorship; I just don’t like the idea of censorship.” They didn’t consider the term ‘allowing’ from the perspective of a professor of logic, rather they expressed their view as to whether it was a good idea to invite such a speaker.
To conclude, I don’t believe that 18% of students strongly favor free speech when discussing abortion. I suspect the actual figure is closer to 2% or 50%. I just don’t know which. Or maybe there is no truth of the matter; it entirely depends on how you word the question. I believe I could word poll questions in such a way as to get almost any desired result.
What do you think?
BTW, even my 50% estimate allows for plenty of “cancel culture” on campuses. I suspect that phenomenon is very real.
PS. This is part of a long series of posts I’ve done questioning “public opinion”, which I regard as a very elusive concept. Sort of like electrons.
PPS. If I’m right, then the following poll questions would yield even more interesting results:
Would you favor allowing a speaker who spoke out against banning speakers who advocated censorship? What about speakers who had no opinion on banning speakers who actually favored censorship, but argued that speakers should be allowed to discuss in general terms the pros and cons of banning pro-censorship speakers? Etc., etc. Keep asking until you find enough degrees of separation from the actual issue that people feel comfortable discussing it. Ban person A? Ban B for talking about A? Ban C for talking about B? Ban D for talking about C?
Or how about this question:
Would you favor banning a speaker who had very strong views on the issue of abortion, if you didn’t know what those views were?
Now that would be interesting. But then pollsters almost never ask the truly interesting questions.
READER COMMENTS
Dylan
Oct 19 2020 at 8:30pm
Based on the headline, I thought you were asking if rational people were WEIRD
Scott Sumner
Oct 19 2020 at 11:34pm
That too!
Russ Abbott
Oct 19 2020 at 8:33pm
Interesting question: “Would you favor banning a speaker who had very strong views on the issue of abortion, if you didn’t know what those views were?”
The problem with even that question is that it doesn’t say whether the possible speaker is a rabble-rouser or a thoughtful advocate of their position. I might very well favor banning the rabble-rouser and oppose banning the thoughtful advocate.
Mark Z
Oct 19 2020 at 9:32pm
I think people are pretty good at convincing themselves that almost anyone notable of the opposing position is a rabble-rouser (and that rabble-rousers with the same views aren’t really rabble-rousers). It’s a standard that allows for too much interpretive liberty not to lead to severe bias.
Scott Sumner
Oct 19 2020 at 11:38pm
I guess my response to rabble rousers is not a ban, it’s either don’t invite or don’t attend the talk. In other words, don’t have the administration overrule a decision by a professor of student group, but the student group should use good judgment and not invite a rabble rouser.
Market Fiscalist
Oct 19 2020 at 9:11pm
There is a difference between being in favor of free speech and believing that this means that you should welcome speakers on controversial topics from coming to a location near you. I believe that holocaust deniers should be allowed free speech but would be strongly against my local temple inviting a neo-nazi to address the congregation..
Scott Sumner
Oct 19 2020 at 11:39pm
I would certainly encourage people not to invite a neo-Nazi.
Philo
Oct 20 2020 at 3:08pm
Is this your position: if a campus organization at your university invited a neo-Nazi to give a talk, you might try to persuade them to withdraw the invitation, but you would not approve of the university administration’s forbidding the neo-Nazi’s visit to campus?
Scott Sumner
Oct 20 2020 at 7:01pm
Yes, I believe that the best way to fight against stupid ideologies is to let them freely speak and make a fool of themselves. Who would attend such a lecture in any case? The hall would probably be almost empty.
Look how much Twitter helped the Trump campaign by banning tweets of that Hunter Biden article. Without the ban, hardly anyone would have paid attention.
Phil H
Oct 21 2020 at 2:49am
I’m not sure this is right, though. Twitter are looking at the experience of Hillary Clinton and the email “scandal”. I literally read an article yesterday still going on about that. The classic example that defined the bold lie strategy for me was the Kerry Swiftboat saga. These experiences suggest that a big lie can take hold, and could even affect the outcome of an election.
Scott Sumner
Oct 21 2020 at 1:45pm
Phil, I think the criticism of the emails story was that outlets like the NYT gave major play to a story of questionable importance right before an election. I don’t think the NYT should give major play to the Hunter Biden story, which seems much more trivial than even the emails story. But trying to ban something makes it spread like wildfire–it’s completely counterproductive.
Mark Z
Oct 19 2020 at 9:47pm
They did put ‘allowing’ in all caps, so I don’t think they were fishing for the results they got. If people don’t read the question, that’s not something that can be fixed by rewriting the question. In practice, I think how students actually react would be highly dependent on the reaction of others. If they hear that, say, Charles Murray is coming to give a talk, and no one else seems to care much, some classmates plan on attending, and you asked ‘should this be allowed?’ many would say ‘yes’ who, if instead there were demonstrations and angry editorials in the school newspaper, would say no.
Scott Sumner
Oct 19 2020 at 11:40pm
Again, I could design wording to get almost any result I wanted.
Jonathan S
Oct 19 2020 at 11:30pm
If the primary concern is freedom of speech the answer to every question should be “Strongly Support.” This would include the hypothetical of allowing a speech that argues in favor of censorship.
If the primary concern is an institution’s freedom of association the answer to every question should be “Indifferent” without having any foreknowledge of a particular institution’s ideology or agenda (e.g. BYU).
JK Brown
Oct 20 2020 at 1:47am
This essay by a Stanford sophomore gives insight into what seems to be the prevalent type of student, at least in reports. This young woman seems to have matured and can look back to her activist year.
I found this to be a good explanation as to why now “words are violence.
Sounds like when you ask a college student’s opinion, you may end up threatening the dearly held activist’s identity beliefs or with a student who has adapted to survive where such landmines are everywhere.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 20 2020 at 2:35am
I’ve often thought many of the controversies over speakers on college campuses could be avoided by recalling why colleges exist. Presumably, they exist primarily to educate students and foster research. That means there’s no reason to have Ann Coulter or Bill Maher speak on campus. That also goes for Jerry Seinfeld, who may not often be controversial, but also isn’t academic.
If speakers at least have to be published in peer-reviewed journals in academic fields, actual political office holders, or business leaders, I think that solves much of the problem. Also, have speakers speak on topics in which they have actual expertise. That excludes most controversial speakers, like Milo Yiannopoulos, many of whom are merely professional provocateurs with no substance anyway.
Scott Sumner
Oct 20 2020 at 7:04pm
I agree, but colleges also have football games. If students occasionally want to have some fun with a lightweight but colorful speaker, that’s fine with me.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 20 2020 at 10:45pm
College athletics is a mess, entertaining though it is. And though I’m a college football fan and watch Florida play every Saturday, I increasingly favor getting rid of college sports. There are many ethical conundrums. It’ll be interesting to see how some athletes getting paid will change things.
I’m a purest who thinks colleges and universities should stop building fitness centers and other non-academic facilities. They should be shrinking their brick and mortar footprints and finding more efficient ways to achieve what should be their core missions, which centers on education and research.
There are other venues for entertainment.
Scott Sumner
Oct 21 2020 at 1:46pm
I’m not a purest. College is mostly about signaling and entertainment. You can learn just as well from the Kahn Academy, probably better. At zero cost.
Rajat
Oct 20 2020 at 4:30am
Is this a form of ‘mood affiliation’ fallacy? It’s pretty sad if students can’t answer the question as it is. I just wonder if you are reading too much into the ‘strongly support’ figures. Your ‘missing’ 32% on abortion might be found in the vanilla ‘support’ respondents. People may think that answering ‘strongly’ does indicate a measure of support for the proposition in question. I would probably (just) ‘support’ allowing a speaker on any of those topics to present. The other question is whether students internalise the expected disruption to classes – and potentially violence – from having a controversial speaker on campus. In the age of podcasts, YouTube and blogs, I can imagine some people thinking those views can be freely accessed at any time.
Scott Sumner
Oct 20 2020 at 7:05pm
Yes, it’s probably mood affiliation. You suggestion about mildly support is plausible.
robc
Oct 20 2020 at 6:58am
This is one of those issues that because super easy in a libertarian society: Its a private institutional so not my concern.
If I was affiliated with the University is some way, I could have an opinion about it. And depending on the goals of the U, my answer may vary.
Grant Gould
Oct 20 2020 at 8:33am
I think these answers probably fall in between the answers you would get if you asked about allowing these speakers in your home and allowing these speakers on the sidewalk.
And since a university falls squarely in between being its students’ home and their sidewalk, this really seems quite sensible to me.
Put me in the “not inviting more controversial extremists into my home, especially if they disagree with me” camp.
Scott Sumner
Oct 20 2020 at 7:06pm
Yes, I wouldn’t invite many of these people either. But I also wouldn’t ban them if other student groups wanted to invite them.
I don’t want college administrations deciding what is controversial.
Floccina
Oct 20 2020 at 5:26pm
I agree but just the same rational people are weird
Philippe Bélanger
Oct 20 2020 at 10:17pm
What is striking about that graph is that the number of people strongly opposed falls but the number of people who are supportive stays mostly flat. If people were simply expressing their opinions on the various questions, you would expect a larger support for questions to which less people are opposed. Instead it seems like college students are just opposed to inviting speakers who promote ideas that are especially divisive.
Comments are closed.