President Milliken shares highlights of free speech event
April 28, 2026 •
The following message was published on President Milliken’s Substack, The Gold and the Blue Volume 22.
Last week, I hosted a discussion with UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman and Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky about their new book: “Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times.”You can watch the full conversation here.
Chancellor Gillman and Dean Chemerinsky have been writing and speaking eloquently about these issues for decades, and their second book together is a welcome addition to current discussions nationally. The pressures on universities to moderate or restrict what can be taught, said, and researched — from legislatures, federal agencies, and sometimes within our own campuses — are significant and consequential. Their book is quite a valuable contribution: It offers a principled framework that addresses in clear and practical terms the obligation to protect free expression and where to draw the lines.
A few things stuck with me from our conversation. The distinction they draw between free speech and academic freedom is one that not enough people, on and off college campuses, clearly understand. I liked Dean Chemerinsky’s description of the two protections as overlapping circles in a Venn Diagram. Free speech protects the right to express ideas without government censorship. Academic freedom is different; it’s a set of rights as well as responsibilities of faculty as scholarly professionals, subject to the judgments of their peers. And while the two overlap, they are not the same.
Another area that is often misunderstood involves whether hate speech can be prohibited or regulated. As Dean Chemerinsky pointed out, hate speech, however despicable or offensive, is generally protected by the First Amendment. But that doesn’t mean universities are powerless against it. There is nothing preventing members of the university community, including its leaders, from condemning hateful rhetoric.
Their advice to administrators facing social media firestorms, campus protests, or calls to cancel speakers is practical and worth heeding. The importance of instituting clear, neutral, and well-understood policies before a crisis, not during one, and being consistent about the application of those policies is advice every campus leader should take seriously.
Chancellor Gillman also addressed an aspect of the current decline in public confidence in universities. He acknowledged that too often our campuses reflect homogeneous political views, and that may suggest an inconsistency with our scholarly mission. This is a point that deserves the thoughtful consideration of faculty and administrators. When half the country has lost trust in universities, we cannot simply ignore what our stakeholders are telling us.
I’m especially grateful to the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and its Executive Director Michelle Deutchman for hosting this conversation and for all their other important work. The Center performs a vital service not only for UC, but for higher education and our country more broadly. Free expression is central to our colleges and universities and to our democracy. I appreciate the Center’s work to help ensure it remains that way.
Sign up today!
To stay up to date with President Milliken, take a quick moment to subscribe to his Substack. Once you do, you’ll receive his latest posts in your inbox as soon as they’re published.
For more information about President Milliken, bookmark his UC website.
