Free Speech on Campus

Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin
Political Science 334
Spring 2025

Group 3. (What to Do About) Student Hecklers
(TA: Tylah Gantt, g.tylah@wustl.edu)

Case-Controversy #1 (Georgetown Law)
(Excerpted and adapted from Georgetown University, Free Speech Project)

On October 17, 2019, Kevin McAleenan, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Trump administration, was supposed to deliver the keynote speech at an event hosted by the Migration Policy Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center.

As McAleenan took the stage in front of a large audience at Georgetown, the protesters stood up and began shouting. They chanted phrases like “stand with immigrants” and “hate is not normal” as McAleenan attempted several times to begin his talk. After a few minutes, McAleenan thanked the moderator and left the stage, not returning to speak for the rest of the event. (The video of the event is here.)

According to the New York Times, the protesters were law students and advocates coordinated by the immigrant advocacy group CREDO Action. When McAleenan’s participation was announced weeks earlier, hundreds of Georgetown Law students and faculty signed a petition calling for the invitation to be withdrawn. The university, as a matter of policy, did not act on the petition and, ultimately, CREDO and some Georgetown Law students interrupted the speech. 

Hours after the incident took place, Georgetown Law’s dean, William M. Treanor, issued a statement to students, faculty, and staff that read, in part:

We share our partners’ regret that the audience did not get to hear from the Secretary and engage in a dialogue through the Q&A session that was scheduled to occur following his remarks. Georgetown Law is committed to free speech and expression and the ability of speakers to be heard and engage in dialogue.

The DHS released its own statement days later, writing, “The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free speech and assembly. Unfortunately that right was robbed from many who were scheduled to speak and attend today’s event at Georgetown.” 

Fox News interviewed several attendees who expressed disappointment in the community’s response to McAleenan’s presence. According to The Hoya, however, many Georgetown students stood in support of the messages promoted by the protesters. 

Case-Controversy #2 (Stanford Law)
(Excerpted and adapted from the New York Times, the Stanford Daily)

At the invitation of the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School (SLS), Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan was scheduled to speak at Stanford Law on March 9, 2023. Duncan, a Trump appointee on the Fifth Circuit, was known for his conservative views. As a lawyer, he defended a state ban on same-sex marriage and a state law restricting transgender people from using their preferred bathroom. And, as a judge, he denied the request of a transgender woman to refer to her with female pronouns.

On March 6, 2023, when they learned that Judge Duncan was scheduled to speak, SLS students in LGBTQ+ groups reached out to FedSoc:

While acknowledging your right to freely associate with speakers and gain mentorship from those you choose, we are writing to express specific concerns about the effect of bringing this person into our campus community… We respectfully request that you cancel your event or move it to Zoom.

FedSoc declined their request.

On the day of Duncan’s speech, protesters filled the classroom—apparently, there were more protesters than FedSoc members—carrying posters condemning Duncan. As Duncan walked into the room, according to one account, he filmed the protesters on his phone in an effort to “make a record” of the event.

As the protest continued, Duncan stopped his lecture and asked an administrator to help him deal with the heckling. SLS Associate Dean for DEI, Tirien Steinbach, stepped up to the podium and delivered a speech (now widely viewed on social media). She “wholeheartedly” welcomed Duncan to campus, but told him, “For many people here, your work has caused harm.” She also asked him, whether the “juice [is] worth the squeeze?”

Shortly thereafter, Duncan stopped his lecture, later saying, “Try delivering a lecture under those circumstances. Basically, they wanted me to make a hostage video. No thanks. The whole thing was a staged public shaming, and after I realized that I refused to play along.”

Five days later, on March 11, Stanford’s president and the SLS law issued an apology to Duncan. The law dean followed up with a 10-page letter to the SLS community.

Both Steinbach and Duncan wrote opinion pieces about the event (Steinbach’s is here; Duncan’s is here). And both have their share of supporters and detractors. For example, the American Constitution Society defended Steinbach; and Mark Joseph Stern (at Slate), providing an alternative account of the event, called Duncan’s conduct a “strategic…public tantrum.” Markedly different responses came from Ted Cruz, Fox News, and Professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University, who filed a complaint against the student protesters with the ABA.

To help you prepare your class presentation(s):

  1. Read the material linked in the case study and watch the videos.

  2. Review your notes on Hostile Audience/Heckler’s Veto and read this passage from a California Supreme Court decision on “audience activities” (In re Kay).

Your presentation should address the following (applying the tools we considered in class):

SUBGROUP 1. After briefly summarizing the controversies, defend the position that student hecklers, as a rule, should not be shut down.

SUBGROUP 2. Defend the position that student hecklers, as a rule, should be shut down.