BY JOHN K. WILSON

California’s Leonard Law, passed in 1992, is unique in the country: It requires private universities to protect some elements of the First Amendment just like a public university. Last month, the Stanford Daily wrote about the Leonard Law controversy on campus, focusing on the Stanford College Republicans and their claim that the Leonard Law protects their right to invite controversial speakers. One of the College Republicans noted, “The University knows it can’t ignore our objections because without a legitimate reason, there’s the Leonard Law and they could have a lawsuit on their hands.”

Stanford Law professor Michael McConnell argued, “The Leonard Law is only about disciplining students for exercising their free speech, not inviting speakers to campus,” That was true when the Leonard Law was originally passed in 1992. However, it was amended in 2006 (in response to the 7th Circuit’s terrible ruling in Hosty v. Carter) to say that the law “does not authorize a prior restraint of student speech or the student press.”

The question is, does a ban on prior restraint of “student speech” apply to speakers invited by students? I think it must. Consider this example: Suppose that a student newspaper planned to print a letter to the editor written by a faculty member. Could the university ban this letter from being printed on the grounds that it was engaging in prior restraint of faculty speech, not student speech? Clearly, the answer is no. The purpose of the Leonard Law amendment was not to allow partial censorship of student publications, but to protect them entirely. By the same logic, the protection of “student speech” must include all events that students organize, even if they include non-student speakers. Because students are organizing, introducing, and questioning outside speakers, “student speech” is intertwined with any student-organized event, and student-invited speakers are covered by the Leonard Law.

The question of funding is different; although the First Amendment covers funding, the Leonard Law doesn’t fully apply the First Amendment to private colleges; it only mentions student discipline and prior restraint of speech. However, Stanford should ensure fair funding of student events, and pay all necessary security expenses when controversial speakers are protested.

I oppose the Leonard Law, as I have since it was enacted. I believe that private colleges should be persuaded to protect intellectual freedom, not forced by the government to do so, and that colleges should aspire to have stronger standards to better protect free expression than the requirements of First Amendment law. And, in fact, Stanford’s official position is exactly that.

Unfortunately, some people at Stanford don’t share that commitment to free speech for all. Stanford professor David Palumbo-Liu argued for banning speakers who “are not here to share ideas and engage in conversation and discussion so much as to get attention for and recruit for organizations that have proven to be antagonistic to free speech.” Palumbo-Liu claimed that an event with Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), had the potential to stifle free speech because TPUSA created the “Professor Watchlist” and advocated for censorship.

According to Palumbo-Liu, “Speakers who come to campus to recruit for groups whose aim is to stifle free speech in such ways should be treated differently, I believe.” There is a serious problem with advocating a ban on people who oppose free speech. In doing so, you are opposing free speech, which means you can then be subjected to such a ban. By calling for the suppression of free speech, Palumbo-Liu is no different from Kirk and can be banned from speaking on campus according to this policy, as can anyone who agrees with a policy of censorship.

Even though Kirk is a hypocritical opponent of free speech on campus, that does not mean he presents any kind of immediate threat to free speech. Kirk’s ideas, if enacted, may have terrible consequences. But the threat to free speech does not come from allowing people on campus who call for censorship. It comes from actually limiting free speech in the name of some higher cause.

It’s noteworthy that many of the activist left-wing students quoted by the Stanford Daily have a better understanding of free speech than some of the faculty and administrators at Stanford. Ruben Kruger, a student who took part in protests outside the Ben Shapiro event, noted: “Stanford should always support free speech and intellectual diversity.”

Ravi Veriah Jacques, the co-founder of a liberal campus publication called the Stanford Sphere, told the Stanford Daily: “I don’t see it as on the ASSU or the administration to determine if speakers like Robert Spencer should come. I think it’s on the left to just not pay attention, as we did for Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens.” Jacques also described the Leonard Law as a tool that “undermines freedom of speech itself.” Jacques added, “The right just wants the right to polemicize demagogic opinions that get broadcast on Fox so that the left looks like it opposes free speech.”

The question is, even if you think conservatives are merely playing a manipulative game about free speech, why do so many on the left help them play it? If we don’t want the left to look like it opposes free speech, the solution is not a failed effort to redefine free speech, but to stop opposing free speech.