The modern bully pulpit

"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

- Samuel Goldwyn

Ideas should triumph through persuasion, not coercion. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994). But many employers and teachers have exploited their bully pulpit to browbeat vulnerable workers and students to adopt and express ideas against their will -- or pay the price. Such conduct, sometimes celebrated as free speech, is antithetical to the First Amendment, which instead prescribes "each person should decide for himself or herself" which ideas to express and believe. Id. Fortunately, recent policy and statutory changes have moved toward this imperative, so freedom of conscience will no longer be a luxury good, limited to the trust-fund set.

The captive audience

The Constitution protects audiences as well as speakers. A Berkeley law student who insisted she had a right to use a megaphone to disrupt a dinner at Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's home was wrong for several reasons. Free speech lets speakers "reach the minds of willing listeners." Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97 (1949). The general right to speak in public supersedes unwilling listeners' objections, so they must instead avert their eyes and ears. But it does not apply when they cannot do so. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212 (1975). So there is "no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener." Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 485 (1988).

"Captive audience" protections apply in schools. The seminal case of Lee v. Weisman concerned a graduation and explained how being forced to hear even nondenominational prayer compelled the audience's own expression -- to endorse or reject the speaker's message. 505 U.S. 577 (1992). Because "standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation," objectors faced the unconstitutional "dilemma of participating, with all that implies, or protesting." That dilemma occurred last year when Mozambique's ambassador requested the U.N. Security Council stand and remain silent to honor Iran's late President Ebrahim Raisi. (Everyone complied.)

Compelled participation can violate listeners' consciences even when it does not concern religion. Lee v. Weisman involved prayer, and a religion case first cited Thomas Jefferson's dictum ("to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.") Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 13 (1947). But the Supreme Court has since recognized that principle bars forced support for controversial political as well as religious positions. Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878, 893 (2018). And the two realms often intersect.

USC barred Asna Tabassum from speaking at the 2024 graduation for "safety" reasons. But the stronger ground would have been the First Amendment itself. The audience was captive, and a monologue cannot foster a true exchange of ideas: "[T]hat only one student is permitted [access to the microphone] suggests that this policy does little to "foste[r] free expression." Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309 (2000).

Tabassum's ideological profile was not a bug but a feature of her candidacy. USC does not select the student with the highest GPA but instead uses a "holistic" process, which considers candidates' campus service and essay submissions. As in Doe, a microphone monopoly would provide the school's endorsement and unfairly privilege her opinion over everyone else's.

Classroom coercion

Compulsory audience participation is even more disturbing when imposed during classroom instruction. UCLA Medical School required all first-year students to attend a "structural racism" lecture, where a keffiyah-draped Hamas supporter ordered students to engage in "non-secular prayer" by kneeling on the floor, and later had them chant "Free, Free Palestine." Aaron Sibarium, "UCLA Med School Requires Students To Attend Lecture Where Speaker Demands Prayer for 'Mama Earth,' Leads Chants of 'Free Palestine,'" Wash. Free Beacon, Apr. 2, 2024.

Worse than the intangible insult imposed by such speech directives are the tangible injuries inflicted for noncompliance. According to the Washington Free Beacon article, when a student refused to stand as ordered at the UCLA lecture, an administrator demanded the student's name, implicitly threatening adverse consequences. Such implicit consequences can affect behavior In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a divided Supreme Court upheld a football coach's personal prayer, but all the justices rejected his former practice of "leading prayers with the team" during mandatory meetings, when players were a "captive audience." 597 U.S. 507, 518, 525 (2022). Several reasonably feared losing playing time if they abstained. They didn't have to pray -- but they didn't have to play either.

Carrots and sticks

Students have been called upon to not merely listen to ideological claims but to repeat them. Faculty offer extra credit for attending anti-Israel protests or lobbying their representative to protest "settler-colonial occupation." Matthew Impelli, "College Students Offered Extra Credit to Attend Pro-Palestine Rally," Newsweek, Oct. 25, 2023. And schools have baked dogma into the curriculum. The competencies prescribed by the Task Force to Integrate Social Justice into the Curriculum at UNC Medical School included advocating for "radical reform of the US criminal justice system" and "ending policies of exclusion and achieving compassionate immigration reform." John Sailer, UNC School of Medicine's Quiet "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" Revolution, James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Nov. 22. 2021. (UNC has since revised its curriculum mandates.)

Moreover, the very conduct that outrages the public (and embarrasses university presidents) is rewarded by campus administrators. Just as Tabassum was selected as valedictorian for her "campus service," two students who cursed and intimidated Professor Nicholas Christakis over Halloween costumes won Yale's Nakanishi Prize for "exemplary leadership." James Kirchik, "Yale Cements Its Line in the Academic Sand by Awarding the Student 'Truthtellers' Who Bullied Faculty," Tablet, May 26, 2017. Stanford Law School selected one of the ringleaders of the mob that shouted down Judge Kyle Duncan as the only student on the search committee for the new dean. Aaron Sibarium, "Stanford Law School Taps Organizer of Shout-Down Protest to Help Find New Dean," Wash. Free Beacon, Oct. 31. 2023. And a student who allegedly assaulted an Israeli classmate was rewarded by the Harvard Law Review with a $65,000 stipend. Johanna Berkman, "Attacking Jews at Harvard Doesn't Just Go Unpunished. It Gets Rewarded," The Free Press, May 21, 2025.

Of course, universities reward and penalize students based on ideology; it is how professors themselves were selected. UC Berkeley infamously eliminated more than three-quarters of its faculty applicants based solely on their unsatisfactory diversity statements. Abigail Thompson, "The University's New Loyalty Oath," Wall St. J., Dec. 19, 2019. A faculty candidate could have cured a major disease, invented new technology, or won a Nobel, but if she insisted on treating students equally, without regard for identity, she would not get an interview.

Some universities have abandoned mandatory diversity statements. This avoids the compelled speech problem, but voluntary statements are even more effective at identifying candidates to hiring committees as like-minded, correct-thinking future comrades.

Off-campus bullying

What happens on campus does not stay on campus; it creeps into the workplace. Secular employers cannot force employees to go to church, but many have compelled their staff to engage in confession. They must announce their privilege, and unconscious bias, in public ceremonies. Workers don't have to express these ideas, but they don't have to get that promotion either. Or keep their job at all.

Coercing vulnerable employees through economic hegemony now faces pushback from both sides of the aisle. Florida barred employers from forcing employees to attend meetings promoting critical race theories. Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor, 94 F.4th 1272, 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2024). The law was found to be unconstitutional because it barred some viewpoints but not others. An even-handed rule, which allowed mandatory meetings for teaching safety protocols but not political ideology, would pass muster.

Califor nia also enacted SB 399, a law that prohibits requiring employees to attend meetings focused on political, religious or labor topics.  Because the First Amendment protects the right to "reach the minds of willing listeners," laws protecting workers from listening against their will should survive constitutional challenge. Employers may regulate their employees' work, not their minds.

A true culture of free speech exists when people embrace ideas out of agreement, not fear of consequences -- speech is genuinely free only when employees can confidently respond, "No, thanks," without repercussion.