# Book Review: Ronald Den Otter’s Education in Democracy **URL:** **By** Bill Glod **Published:** September 10, 2026 --- While much has been written in defense of free speech in higher education, Ronald Den Otter argues that free speech should also be defended in public secondary schools for its benefits in cultivating future democratic adult citizens. [Ronald Den Otter](https://politicalscience.calpoly.edu/faculty/ron-den-otter)’s new book, [_Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_](https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700641475/), defends an overlooked topic. Much attention has been given to higher education and [college campus free speech](https://rankings.fire.org/), but little has been given to secondary education, namely, middle and high schools. Constitutional free speech rights are accorded to university students both because most are legal adults and because a chief purpose of much [higher education](https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus) is to help students think critically about issues relevant to liberal democracy. However, the same freedom [is rarely defended](https://www.sphere-ed.org/) for minor students before they enter college, and the author rightly finds this absence curious. The book cover of Ronald Den Otter's "Education in Democracy." *Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026).* Den Otter doesn’t offer a [Millian](https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/mill-liberty-thought-and-discussion) “marketplace of ideas” defense of student free speech, where discussion and debate may yield fresh and original insights to address enduring social challenges. This is because we don’t typically expect sophisticated levels of discussion among adolescents, but some use this lack of sophistication as a pretext for censoring or punishing certain student speech in secondary educational institutions. Den Otter argues that youth expression’s alleged lack of value is not the issue. Rather, one major reason for protecting student speech is to allow them opportunities to cultivate the autonomy needed to be responsible in their private and civic adult lives. If people are kept from developing these skills as youths, how can we expect them to become effective deliberators and communicators in adulthood? Nothing transformative happens the moment a teenager sets foot on a college campus. A key throughline of the book is that speech serves valuable non-epistemic roles such as fostering empathy and toleration, even if the content of the speech may appear to lack value. The importance of expression is as much about the process of communication as the outcomes. Free speech allows opportunities to _develop individuals respectfully_, which is why school authorities should not decide for students what they can say or write. Ultimately, students themselves must learn how to be responsible agents rather than infantilized rule-followers.[1](#_edn1) Further, exposure to a wide range of ideas early in life can help students develop a tolerant attitude toward those who hold disagreeable ideas in our pluralistic society.[2](#_edn2) To prevent someone from saying what they want to say conveys the message that what they believe does not matter—and by extension, they don’t matter. Someone who will not let another person speak their mind would also likely not be inclined to respect their personal choices about how to live when the stakes are even higher.[3](#_edn3) As adults, we should be rightly indignant if someone prevents us from living by our own judgments and choices, so why should matters be different in kind regarding those areas where minors can form their own beliefs, however inchoate? Demanding passive obedience from high school students risks the production of servile adults willing to believe whatever the perceived authorities tell them. Liberal democracy can’t survive with such a population. Allowing free speech also _safeguards abuses of authority_: > There is no way to predict, once school officials have been given the authority to restrict student speech, exactly how they will use it, but invariably they would favor some viewpoints over others, prevent some exchanges of ideas from occurring at all, and end important conversations prematurely, thereby precluding numerous teachable moments and other learning opportunities.[4](#_edn4) Those with the authority to censor will also be tempted to suppress ideas critical of how they exercise that very authority.[5](#_edn5) The temptation to censor, if one is given the power, transcends ideology. Neither conservative, progressive, nor other types of views are safe. Nobody can know ahead of time whether the political views that they favor—or those of their children—will be at risk of censorship by those who place biases ahead of principle.[6](#_edn6) Finally, allowing free speech _prepares students for a world of contestation_. Encountering intense opposition to our views is inevitably discomfiting, as Alex Gourevitch observes, but how could it be otherwise when our deeply held beliefs are challenged? Such opposition is inevitable in a free and plural society. Exposure to [viewpoint diversity](https://heterodoxacademy.org/issues/viewpoint-diversity/) is an antidote to the algorithmic information siloing behind so much tribalism and polarization in our current moment. Moreover, the development of autonomous capacities cannot be divorced from the practice of democratic citizenship because speech, thought, and action are intimately connected.[7](#_edn7) Engaging other viewpoints may also help young people grow comfortable with epistemic humility. That is, it may lead students to withhold judgment on a given matter rather than feeling like they must always have an unreflective opinion either way, enabling them to say “I don’t know” with confidence rather than adopting the uninformed views of some random crank.[8](#_edn8) ### **Key Cases** Until the changing mores of the 1960s, it was assumed that students lacked free-speech rights in secondary education. School officials expected total student obedience, and most parents were fine with this arrangement. The constitutional case for greater student speech arose with [_Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District_](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/tinker-v-des-moines/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines) (1969). Three students were suspended for violating the school’s ban on black armbands, which they wore to mourn the dead and protest American involvement in the Vietnam War. By a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the school violated these students’ free expression rights because, regardless of whether their expression conveyed unpopular views, they did not cause a substantial disruption to the learning environment. Voicing the majority opinion, [Abe Fortas](https://supreme.justia.com/justices/abe-fortas/) famously wrote that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Fortas invoked the Substantial Disruption Test (SDT) as the one key exception to allowing student expression. Speech that may be allowed in more public fora and free-speech zones, such as cafeterias and gymnasiums, could prove a distraction in the classroom. In which case, it may be restricted on the grounds of _distraction alone_ and not due to the content of the expression itself. A student may be prevented from giving a speech against (or for) war during a math class because the main purpose of such a class is to learn math, not to debate war. SDT aside, Fortas defended “content neutrality” of speech. Authorities could not restrict speech based on their evaluation of accuracy or quality of the ideas conveyed by that speech. However, the 1986 Supreme Court case [_Bethel School District v. Fraser_](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/) chipped away at the _Tinker_ ruling by restricting non-disruptive student expression deemed offensive to others. At a voluntary high school student assembly, Matthew Fraser gave a speech supporting the nomination of his friend for student vice president. His speech was laced with sexual innuendos that got him suspended. The Court upheld the school’s decision, ruling that the school could restrict and punish expression that offended others while having no independent value. While the exception focused on _sexually_ offensive speech, the ruling set precedents for much broader interpretations of offense that went beyond the prurient. The 1988 case of [_Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier_](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/260/) chipped away further. It ruled that student expression—even non-offensive or potentially valuable speech—could be further restricted in _school-sponsored_ fora, such as class newspapers, on the grounds that the school has a reputational stake in not being seen as advocating certain controversial or unpopular views. Finally, the Court ruled in the 2007 _[Morse v. ](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/393/)[Frederick](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/393/)_ case (also known as the “[Bong Hits 4 Jesus](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=b4f7fa5c2ef07e05&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1058US1058&sxsrf=APpeQnvlhDwS1bgJGzdaeLjKtqMQOAsjnA:1786490857131&udm=2&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832VTJOOCxW_fyN-Q_ezyf8gKCPb62Sv4Y60wQDsMxJw_GPIZkctzkqISrBUBua3GiJIjh8IRroSNezMMF2EeDIrfNzbRA1_UZ9fdF4VAfIOMzapVLvsh1GcN6Ym_zS89OylZbw9vJ3HBb06HORdZMXkBSfhL7K_deZZxtVUxV665bLTY_Zg&q=bong+hits+4+jesus&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm3ruH3ZmWAxVKGlkFHXYfDmgQtKgLegQIFxAB&biw=1366&bih=633&dpr=1#sv=CAMSXhoyKhBlLUVKXzREa0xfbmVBMmpNMg5FSl80RGtMX25lQTJqTToOemc0bXJsRlZ3cGQ2WU0gBCokCg5kV0RlVmJNMldBbEJDTRIQZS1FSl80RGtMX25lQTJqTRgAMAEYByC-qICoCUoIEAEYASABKAE)” case) that schools could restrict student expression that endorsed _illegal activity_, such as drug use, in the name of protecting other students. While a considerable victory for student free speech, Den Otter observes that a central worry about the _Tinker_ ruling is that SDT could allow a disruptive heckler’s veto to restrict unpopular but valuable expression. Speakers could be preemptively restrained, or punished, not because their expression is wrong but simply because others might react negatively (and loudly) to it. Students should not be silenced or held responsible when it is foreseeable that others might react to their controversial speech disruptively rather than constructively. Against the _Fraser_ case, Den Otter contends that the state cannot prevent erotic or “inappropriate” thoughts from entering people’s minds. Attempts to regulate what may cause unpleasant emotions are also fraught. Students should learn resilience, not be coddled due to squeamishness. The state is no more the arbiter of taste than the arbiter of religious truth. Besides, people can be offended by ideas that are true or by those who are not acting immorally. Many Christians were once offended by the theory of heliocentrism. Racists can be offended by interracial couples. Offensive speech may sometimes be necessary as a rhetorical call to focus on injustice (e.g., “F\*\*\* the draft!”). Being nice isn’t always the best policy. That some people may be offended in these situations does not matter, nor is there a bright line between _how_ something is said and _what_ is being said. Surely, “F\*\*\* the draft!” is more effective than “Stop the draft!” in drawing attention to the speaker’s indignation about military conscription, suggesting the two expressions convey different content. Against the Hazelwood case, Den Otter critiques the notion that school imprimaturs communicate endorsement of expression that may cause a public outcry. Schools can issue a general disclaimer that opinions expressed in a newspaper editorial are the views of the student and don’t necessarily reflect the school’s official position, if there is one. The same goes for other school-sponsored events where controversial expression may occur. Finally, Den Otter critiques the Morse decision for its blatant viewpoint discrimination. Presumably, Frederick would not have been punished if he hung a banner reading “Just Say No!” By restricting his pro-drug message, Den Otter argues that the school is also depriving students of opportunities to consider the possible benefits of recreational use and legalization, and not merely the potential harms of drugs. They cannot make informed decisions if they are only getting scare tactics and one side of the narrative. Schools are welcome to express their own viewpoint regarding drug usage, since pro-drug viewpoints are controversial, yet it does not follow that they also may indoctrinate students by silencing a contrary viewpoint, particularly when that viewpoint may be more defensible than that of the school.[9](#_edn9) ### **Arguments for Censorship** Den Otter outlines several considerations against allowing student free expression. First, young children are impressionable and subject to adopting bad ideas they are exposed to. School authorities should protect them during this time of fragility by censoring or restricting expression that could lead them astray before they have a chance to consider questionable ideas in a more reflective and mature state. Young children often don’t have their own ideas, so they are prone to believe more deeply the views they are exposed to initially. This path dependence may affect how curricula should be presented and discussed. For instance, learning about the dark side of American history could foster a cynical rejection of its many bright spots, fomenting civil discord and an erosion of patriotism. Further, encouraging students to question received opinion could backfire, resulting in total student refusal to obey _any_ authority (“If we can question any view, why can’t we question _you_?”). Beyond campus, this totalizing skepticism could undermine the very social order needed to sustain our freedoms and rights. Many teenagers are rebellious enough and might need more structure than they’re willing to admit. Secondary schools’ primary missions are for education on the curriculum and the provision of safe spaces for young minds; they are not public fora for endless discussion and debate about what’s wrong with the world. There will be plenty of time for that off campus and after graduation. Content neutrality also ignores the potential harms done to vulnerable and marginalized people when misogynistic or racist speech is allowed on campus. Racial minorities and LGBTQ+ students face enough social resistance in their daily lives; permitting hateful speech on secondary school campuses might only reinforce their sense of being part of an inferior group not worthy of equal dignity. It’s difficult enough being a teenager, but it’s even more difficult being part of often marginalized groups whose school permits ignorant expression that demeans their very identities. School authorities should be able to censor or restrict speech that risks creating a hostile space for such students and potentially interferes with their ability to pursue an education with equal opportunity. Perhaps none of these considerations is sufficient by itself to defeat an argument for principled freedom of student speech, but together they may be decisive. ### **Responses to Arguments for Censorship** Den Otter argues forcefully that, far from protecting young students, restricting expression harms them by undermining their ability to develop into _autonomous_ adults. Nobody learns how to become more independent and responsible by being told what to do. A student speaker is not likely to harm themselves seriously by speaking or writing.[10](#_edn10) People can have multiple reasons for wanting to encounter a particular idea, even when it is probably false, such as assessing its merits for themselves. Some of those who disagree with the idea will not want it censored because they value the chance to debunk it with their own counter speech.[11](#_edn11) One does not deny someone the chance to develop an important skill in life because they lack it at the outset but have the capacity to develop it, and speech is no different.[12](#_edn12) Restriction of school speech interferes with the autonomy of listeners as well, insofar as they lose the opportunity to reflect upon opposing viewpoints and think for themselves, even when they do so poorly. After all, the point of education is to learn and improve skills indefinitely, not to be excellent from the beginning.[13](#_edn13) Even young children have partial autonomy. Poor choices do not necessarily mean that a teenager lacks such capacities any more than adults do when they make bad decisions.[14](#_edn14) Restrictions on speech function as restrictions on thought as well. Students must have ample opportunity to develop confidence in their own voices. A person cannot develop an independent point of view unless they encounter different ideas about what is important and is permitted to converse with others about their experiences and beliefs.[15](#_edn15) In addition to autonomy, maximal freedom of student expression can help them better develop _critical thinking skills_, in turn allowing them to develop a willingness to challenge authority and demand reasons from those who exercise it.[16](#_edn16) The objective is to make them more reflective about their beliefs and more skeptical of what they have been told.[17](#_edn17) It is too late to start this educational process when people are adults, when they have already ingrained habits and most of their beliefs are no longer subject to revision.[18](#_edn18) Before they become adults, adolescents must learn that it is possible that both themselves _and_ authority figures could be wrong, irrespective of how sure they feel, leading to more willingness to make the effort to appreciate why others might disagree with them.[19](#_edn19) Exposure to all kinds of difference and disagreement must take place as soon as possible in a world where too many Americans live in echo chambers and are vulnerable to confirmation bias.[20](#_edn20) A hands-off approach by educators allows students to become more independent and not expect others to do for them what they need to learn to do for themselves, especially when educators might otherwise have partisan and self-serving agendas like making their schools as woke or anti-woke as possible. [Catherine Ross](https://catherinejrosslawprof.com/) observes that if schools stamp out curiosity and convince students that disagreement with those in power is frowned upon, it may be difficult to restore traits of independent thought when they are needed for success in adulthood. Far from encouraging rebellion for its own sake, a culture of educational free expression maximizes the odds that a critical number of students will develop into citizens who think for themselves and don’t merely fall prey to received opinion or dis/misinformation. No doubt it is undesirable for people to have racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic beliefs, but those beliefs never will be legislated out of existence through various censorship measures.[21](#_edn21) Repressing false or pernicious views won’t make them go away; if anything, repression will keep them from being challenged by counter speech and condemnation. With the exceptions of sustained patterns of harassment and bullying that target specific students, Den Otter argues that even offensive and racist speech should be allowed in campus free-speech zones. Attempting to regulate such “borderline” speech risks putting discretion over viewpoints in the hands of biased school officials. This poses a greater risk of harm than unpleasantness caused by offensive expression. Encouraging a culture of free expression in secondary education best helps students develop _toleration_ of beliefs and values they may strongly disagree with. While allowing offensive speech may at times cause discomfort for racial minorities and LGBTQ+ students, that same freedom gives them and sympathetic others a forum for counter speech where they can stand up for who they are and seek to educate those otherwise inclined to ignorance. Self-reflection can also make would-be authoritarians more reluctant to impose their will on others even when they and their political allies have the power to do so.[22](#_edn22) Young people can learn to deal with the inevitable frustration of living with those who will not accept what they are convinced is true or right.[23](#_edn23) The _normalization_ of difference and disagreement can foster a more tolerant attitude on the part of future citizens and perhaps more empathy for those who have different life experiences. The earlier such exchanges become normal, the more they are felt as second nature in the “real world” of adulthood. Students can extend charity to those with whom they disagree vehemently when they also expect to receive it from others in the name of reciprocity.[24](#_edn24) Perhaps our political climate would be healthier if free expression were widely encouraged in secondary education. Without free expression, students will tend to sort into their information silos or “cyberbalkanize” online, while carrying these habits into adulthood. By contrast, when those who work at a public school do not have the constitutional option of cracking down on student speech, they will be motivated to be more innovative in how they handle the most difficult free-speech situations.[25](#_edn25) But without free speech, students who have false beliefs will not have their ideas challenged. There will be little chance for them to change their minds when exposed to contrary evidence. The trouble is not that counter speech always fails. Rather, there is not enough of it.[26](#_edn26) ### Friendly Contestations Den Otter’s arguments throughout are thoughtful, even excellent, but this can’t be a proper book review without mentioning some lacunae worth addressing in future work. First, it’s unclear why Den Otter’s arguments for student autonomy should not also apply to homeschooled and private school students. If opportunities for free expression are crucial for all adolescents, it would seem their free-speech rights override any alleged rights their parents may claim to determine their children’s manner of education. Private religious schools would be required to allow open discussion of views those religions may find sinful and detestable. If so, this may be seen as a liberal imposition of the state’s bias toward autonomy that undermines parents’ ability to raise their children according to certain non-liberal traditions. Perhaps Den Otter has a good response about why matters are different for these parents and students. But if matters are indeed different, then why shouldn’t parents who can only afford public schools _also_ have comparable rights to decide what their children get exposed to on campus? Second, Den Otter’s narrative implies that we face a great deal of political issues needing democratic adjudication. Perhaps this is true, but it assumes that we can’t outsource our disagreements through allowing the greatest amount of decentralization and jurisdiction consistent with protecting our basic rights and liberties—a more libertarian state, in other words. As [David Schmidtz](https://business.wvu.edu/faculty-and-staff/directory/profile?pid=3546) argues, perhaps the greatest successes in learning how to live together stem not so much from achieving democratic consensus but from agreeing to let people decide for themselves. This doesn’t undermine the argument for the importance of student free speech, since we would still need enough people to have reflective commitments to respecting and tolerating each other’s differences. However, it may reconfigure the instrumental value of free speech toward support of institutions that can make our disagreements less threatening or at least bypass the need for massive and frequent political deliberation. Finally, while Den Otter focuses on the importance of free speech’s role in developing young people into responsible democratic _citizens_, his argument (if sound) also supports the value of free speech in developing them into more responsible _individuals_. Free and democratic societies can’t endure if a critical number of their members want others to think and live for them, or they want to impose their views on others. _If_ servile and authoritarian tendencies are mostly learned rather than innate, then surely cultivating habits of thinking for oneself and respectfully considering disagreement would help young people become independent adults who respect others’ independence too. Den Otter’s central philosophical argument may have benefited by delving more explicitly into this matter while spending less time on downstream topics like interpretations of what pornography is. _Education in Democracy_ is vital reading for academic and amateur philosophers, political theorists, legal scholars, educators, students, and parents interested in freedom of expression. Those who support the restriction of student expression must grapple with Den Otter’s arguments. ## Endnotes [1.](#_ednref1) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 4. [2.](#_ednref2) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 7. [3.](#_ednref3) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 8. [4.](#_ednref4) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 11. [5.](#_ednref5) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 13 [6.](#_ednref6) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 18. [7.](#_ednref7) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p.16 [8.](#_ednref8) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 17. [9.](#_ednref9) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 111. [10.](#_ednref10) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 121. [11.](#_ednref11) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 122. [12.](#_ednref12) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 123. [13.](#_ednref13) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 124. [14.](#_ednref14) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 127. [15.](#_ednref15) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 133. [16.](#_ednref16) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 146. [17.](#_ednref17) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 147. [18.](#_ednref18) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 152. [19.](#_ednref19) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 160. [20.](#_ednref20) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 164. [21.](#_ednref21) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 162. [22.](#_ednref22) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 170. [23.](#_ednref23) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 183. [24.](#_ednref24) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 187. [25.](#_ednref25) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 195. [26.](#_ednref26) Ronald Den Otter, _Education in Democracy: The Importance of Free Speech in American Public Schools_ (University of Kansas Press, 2026), p. 196.