A little over six months ago I set out to test the limits of government control over universities. My experiment became very real on April 12th when national drug "czar" Bob Martinez accepted my challenge and all but demanded that Stanford University, my employer, fire me. Stanford has since done so and I find myself at the center of a controversy concerning drugs, free speech, and the relationship between universities and government. As a libertarian, I disagree with many of the policies of the federal government. High on that list has always been the war on drugs, because drugs have been a positive influence in my life and I know from my own first-hand knowledge of drugs that the government is using distorted propaganda to whip up hysteria over this issue. The last straw came for me when the federal government, under the provisions of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, forced Stanford University to adopt a new stricter alcohol and drug policy last October 1st in order to continue to qualify for federal funds. I have been at Stanford for over ten years, and one of the elements of its philosophy that I have come to appreciate most is its decision to treat students as adults. Stanford's previous policy on alcohol and drug use was to respect the privacy of students, faculty and staff as long as people behaved responsibly. I consider this a very libertarian attitude, and the definition of responsible behavior was almost always drawn along libertarian lines (i.e., individuals were not allowed to threaten the rights or property of others). This policy has worked extremely well at Stanford, proving a long-held libertarian belief that when you give people freedom in exchange for responsible behavior, they behave more responsibly than they do in an atmosphere of mistrust and regulation. To protest the new policy, I wrote an article for The Stanford Daily in which I discussed my views on drugs, my opposition to the new policy and my intention to violate it. I chose my backpack as a battleground, because it seemed to be a good symbol of my concern over privacy. If they can limit what's in my backpack, I reasoned, then they can require me to take a drug test and they can limit what student's do in their dorm rooms (actions that I consider incompatible with the university's mission). So I mentioned in the article that I had carried illegal drugs in my backpack while on campus and that I would do so in the future. As I expected, Stanford ignored my article. Nobody at Stanford wanted the new policy anyway, and I think everyone hoped to ignore it. Some even argued that because the government had played politics by forcing it on us, we should reciprocate by having it on the books but not enforcing it. Just before Thanksgiving The Stanford Daily ran an article in which two government spokesmen gave their opinions on how Stanford should approach alcohol and drug use. Ronald Bucknam, for example, suggested that we needed more "rules-type" staff members in our residences. Bucknam typified the entire situation: an ignorant man in Washington setting policies for an institution that he knows nothing about because the war on drugs is currently high on everyone's political agendas. Another incident that has become important to my story happened coincidentally just after Thanksgiving. I was at the airport waiting for the bus that goes back to Stanford when a former student asked me whether I'd be willing to advise him about whether or not to experiment with a drug called MDA that I had mentioned in my article. We had an hour-long conversation in which he told me about his previous experiences with LSD and marijuana and his particular fears about MDA. I told him that the two fears he had (addiction and loss of control) were bad reasons to avoid MDA and that my own experiences with the drug were excellent. In essence, I advised him to try it. This conversation on the bus, which happened off school grounds and at the initiation of the student, has become the focus of the public controversy, even though it is not covered by Stanford's alcohol and drug policy nor by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Getting back to my story, I decided to test the waters a bit more by writing a letter to several government officials, including Bucknam and Jesse Helms, to see if they could prod Stanford into taking action. I enclosed my article and to make them angry, I mentioned that nothing bad had happened to me since writing it, that in fact nothing but good things had happened. As an example, I cited the conversation with the student who wanted advice about MDA. I heard second-hand that Bucknam was very angry about my letter and that he was trying to get people in Washington to do something, but nothing happened. I never wrote to Bennett because he left office the same week I decided to launch my letter campaign. Nothing happened for several months, mostly because my attention was diverted by the Gulf War. But towards the end of March I wrote Bucknam another letter to let him know that Stanford still had not taken action and that I was giving dorm talks explaining my views on drugs. When I noticed that Bob Martinez had been sworn in as the new national drug czar, I sent him a letter as well, telling him that it was "about time that I included you on my list of government officials to harass." I was a bit whimsical that day and went on to say that "I am doing everything I can to make fools of you." Much has been made of the "rudeness" of my letter to Martinez, so let me quote a bit to give you an idea of the challenge I posed to him: The students that I talk to find it very encouraging that I can so openly defy government and Stanford policy without reprisal, proving my point that such policies have an effect only to the extent that people, out of fear, voluntarily change their behavior. I do not fear any of you, I have not changed my behavior, and nothing bad has happened to me. On the contrary, my stand against you has brought me additional respect, new friends, and an apparently endless stream of invitations to discuss my beliefs with students who are trying to make tough decisions about whether or not to experiment with drugs and/or whether or not to take the risk of continuing to use drugs in light of government persecution. If your office gives you any power to try to force me to change my behavior, I suggest that you apply it immediately, because right at the moment you look rather silly at Stanford to me and the numerous students that I talk to. I included all of my correspondence to Bucknam in my letter to Martinez and a copy of my previous article. Three weeks later I received a phone call from Mike Isikoff, a reporter for The Washington Post, asking for my comment on Martinez' letter to our university president. I hadn't heard of the letter, so he explained the situation to me. Martinez had written to Stanford expressing concern about me and reminding them of their legal responsibility. In part, he said, "In all candor, I would find it beyond comprehension that a man who openly professes to have encouraged an undergraduate to ingest MDA could continue to enjoy faculty privileges at a pace-setting institution like Stanford University. I was myself a teacher for many years. I can think of no action more radically at odds with the responsibilities an educator has to his students." I was handed a letter explaining that I had been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation as I walked out of my class that afternoon (Friday, April 19). Within an hour, the university had broadcast a press release announcing my suspension (ironically, they were careful enough to have a press release go out, but they didn't even bother to inform my boss or the chairman of my department). The whirlwind of national attention began on Sunday when the Washington Post ran their article. In retrospect, I think I was very fortunate that Isikoff framed the debate as a question of how the war on drugs will be waged at universities, particularly as it relates to freedom of speech and academic freedom. The next week and a half was one of the most hectic times of my life. The Washington Post begat National Public Radio, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, who begat CNN news, who begat CBS Evening News, who begat CNN's "Crier and Company" and "Cross Fire," and so on. I have also become the most popular speaker in the dorms. I have spoken at nineteen dorms since the story broke, with an average attendance of 50-60 people and the discussion going on for an average of two and a half hours (a couple have gone on for four hours). Although I had expected the backpack to be the major focus in the media, it in fact became just an amusing backdrop to the real issue: whether faculty members should be allowed to advocate drug use. My backpack is probably the most photographed backpack in history, but almost all of the news stories and debate has centered on advocacy. Let me quote a few sources: - In responding to an editorial in The Stanford Daily that supported my right to express my opinion on drugs, Stanford President Donald Kennedy said that "we are talking about conduct and not protected speech. While the distinction is not always simple, it is notMas The Daily editorial suggestsMtrue that words, or even 'personal conversation,' necessarily constitute protected speech. Criminal conspiracy, incitement and other long-established crimes are primarily verbal, but that does not protect those who commit them from prosecution and punishment...It seems unconscionable for responsible persons on this campus to recommend the use of illicit drugs." - House Narcotics Chairman "Charlie" Rangel issued a press release about me on April 24th saying, in part, that "free speech is one thing, but speaking freely about an illegal activity such as drug abuse and drug possession should not in any way be rewarded." I've never asked to be rewarded, so I assume that he means that I should be punished. I debated Rangel on CBS "Night Watch" and CNN's "Cross Fire" and he repeated the same position. I got him to all but admit that he doesn't obey the speed limit laws, but he won't accept the idea that there are unjust laws and that citizens have the right to encourage people to disobey them. I share Jefferson's view that ideas should compete freely with each other and that if you perceive that someone is spreading untruth, you should fight them with truth (not government). Here is a relevant passage from Notes on Virginia (Jefferson was discussing religious freedom): Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error...They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it comes to systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error...It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. I believe universities should be the citadels of "reason and free inquiry." As a result, I don't believe that faculty members should be censured for the opinions they express, even if those opinions involve recommending the breaking of university policies or laws. I'm willing to concede that speech can cross over into conduct in certain rare circumstances such as libel or incitement, but such cases should be handled by the court system and not by the university (and my legal advisors indicate that I am not guilty of any such crime). Few people, however, seem to agree with my view of the university. Bob Novak articulated a position on CNN that many seem to share: that the parents who spend so much money sending their children to schools like Stanford should be able to decide how it is run. I firmly believe that parents should be able to choose where they will send their children (i.e., where they will spend their money), but I also believe that universities should resist such pressure to the extent that they are able to do so. Obviously if nobody wants to go to Stanford, it will go out of business, but I think it is better for the university to stick to its ideals and risk failure than to allow public opinion to govern what opinions may be expressed on campus. Unfortunately, many people seem to disagree with me, including many faculty members. An interesting parallel is the attempt to suppress communists during the McCarthy era. In 1949 Stanford's President Wallace Sterling made a comment that sounds much like Martinez' comments about me. Sterling said, "I doubt very much that a member of the Communist Party is a free agent. If he is not a free agent, then it would seem to follow that he cannot be objective. If he cannot be objective, he is by definition precluded from being an educator." In a recent poll Stanford faculty members were asked, "Do you think that recommending that a student should use an illegal drug is punishable conduct or protected free speech?" The results were: 54% punishable conduct, 28% don't know, and 18% free speech. Most ironic of all is the fact that President Bush made a speech at the graduation ceremony for the University of Michigan on May 4th about universities and free speech. He was addressing the issue of political correctness and the alarming trend towards silencing unpopular opinions (I agree with Bush, by the way, that this is a frightening trend). He said, "Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States, including on some college campuses...Disputants treat sheer forceMgetting their foes punished or expelled, for instanceMas a substitute for the power of ideas. Throughout history, attempts to micromanage casual conversation have only incited distrust...We all should be alarmed at the rise of intolerance in our land, and by the growing tendency to use intimidation rather than reason in settling disputes." Was the speech-writer a libertarian, do you suppose? It's a great speech, and seems highly relevant to my case, but I doubt that Bush can see the connection. It would take me too long to explain my impression of the politics and media coverage (I'm thinking of writing a book about it), but let me make a few observations. My story has been investigated almost entirely by newspaper reporters, with TV news and radio programs immediately following suit (in fact, I've always gotten a new series of phone calls each time my story was covered in another city's newspaper). The media has done a fairly good job of not distorting my message, but my opponents have twisted my words and used emotional appeal to sidetrack the real issues. First, they try to reduce my case to an argument about crack cocaine and heroin, even though I have never publicly or privately advocated the use of either and am not myself a user of either substance. Second, they talk about the "kids" and "impressionable youngsters" at Stanford who might be led astray by a person they deeply respect. This is an example of a myth that I think libertarians know all too well is perpetuated by government and others who would control our lives; namely, that there are people who are so weak and ignorant that they need to be taken care of and protected. Martinez, in fact, likes to portray his entire struggle as an attempt to extend the protective atmosphere of high school into the colleges to save children. Perhaps Martinez is right in trying to protect children before they come to college (although we disagree on how best to accomplish this), but my view of a university (one shared by many at Stanford) is that college should be the time when children become adults and learn to make their own choices. I'm sure they would have attacked my professional record if they could have, even though it is not really relevant to the fundamental questions in my case, but they have been frustrated to find that my job performance is quite good. Stanford President Kennedy gave me an award at graduate six years ago for "Outstanding Service to Undergraduate Education," the Dean of Engineering the next year at graduation gave me the "School of Engineering Distinguished Advisor Award," and the undergraduates recently voted me among their top twelve favorite instructors. Let me also quickly point out that my case raises several interesting questions for libertarians and for me as I decide whether or not to go to court over my case: - By contract, I can expect to be employed through at least August of 1992. They can only terminate me for "professional misconduct," and I believe it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not that is a fair characterization. This also constitutes a kind of "professional libel" (I doubt that West Point is going to rush to snap me up if Stanford lets me go). - Stanford is not an entirely private institution. The fact that they accept federal funds might actually increase rather than decrease their obligation to respect my constitutional freedoms. - It's not clear that Stanford wants to fire me. The government is forcing them to act, and the government shouldn't be using my money to lobby for the firing of individuals they disagree with. This afternoon (Friday, May 10) the university informed me that my employment would be terminated effective May 15th. They chose not to fire me over the advocacy issue, although they expressed concern about it. They fired me over the backpack issue and my claim that I allowed some underage students to order a before-dinner drink at a restaurant. They have held out a carrot by saying that if I promise to abide by the policy in the future, I might qualify for reinstatement. The alcohol issue was never central to what I've been fighting for, so I intend to make such a promise as it relates to allowing underage students to drink. I do not intend, however, to make any promises about the backpack. I will file a grievance, but I doubt that I will manage to change their minds. I believe that the backpack is just an excuse and that they are really firing me because the government is pressuring them to do so because of my drug advocacy. This is most evident from the fact that they did nothing in November, not even writing a letter of concern, even though I broadcast to the entire campus that I was carrying illegal drugs in my backpack. They didn't act until Bob Martinez wrote a letter five months later. It seems clear that their action was motivated by government pressure, not by a desire on their part to censure me over the backpack. Let me close with one last observation. I have never been found guilty of a drug-related crime. The captain of the Stanford Police has stated publicly that he can't even get a search warrant issued based on what I've said. All I have done is to talk, and the government can't take me to court for that. They have succeeded in punishing me nevertheless by forcing Stanford to take on the enforcement role. Stanford has been coerced into becoming a partner in the war on drugs, extending the government's ability to punish drug users, and that is a big step backward for this institution and for the future of freedom in this country.