I’ve just finished Nadine Strossen‘s 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, one of 16 volumes in the series “Inalienable Rights,” edited by University of Chicago constitutional law professor Geoffrey Stone.  Click on the screenshot to go to the book’s Amazon site:

Strossen was president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1991 to 2008—their first woman president. She’s now a professor at New York Law School. She’s always been a civil-rights lawyer, and this is her third book on the topic. Given her expertise and position at the ACLU, she was an excellent person to write this book.

I recommend it to all of you who want to read a succinct (186 page) argument for why hate speech should be neither outlawed nor censored by the government. (Strossen also argues—and I agree—that although censorship of hate speech is prohibited in government institutions, including public universities, private institutions should also follow public ones as far as possible.) She goes into the legal background for allowing hate speech, citing numerous court decisions and also mentioning what forms of speech can be barred by law (speech that incites imminent violence and cannot be countered by non-censorious means, defamation, false advertising, personal and persistent harassment of individuals in the workplace, etc.)

She then makes the argument for allowing hate speech, with each point in a separate chapter:

• Hate speech violates fundamental principles of free speech and equality
• Hate speech is irreparably vague; no hate speech ban or law can be applied without subjective interpretation that bans some speech that we really want to allow
• There is no evidence that hate speech causes the harms that it’s said to (personal trauma, victimization, etc.)
• There is evidence that listening to hate speech and developing a “tough skin” to withstand it and argue against it is psychologically healthier than reacting like a victim and being offended
• Hate speech laws have been ineffective: they don’t reduce hate speech or bigotry in countries where they’ve been enacted
• There are better ways to counteract hate speech than censoring it or making rules against it (counterspeech, organized “opposition events,” etc.)

In other words, this is a defense of the First Amendment, and takes into account and answers most of the arguments people make against “hate speech”. While the first half of the book is largely repetitive and a bit tedious, the second half, which gives examples instead of purely philosophical argument, is worth the price of the book alone. I recommend it for all free-speech advocates—or for those who want to ban “hate speech”

I want to emphasize two of Strossen’s arguments that are relevant to recent events on campuses. The first is her argument that the best way to eliminate bigotry is to urge people from different “tribes” to get to know one another. This is the basis on which I oppose recent calls for “affinity housing” (e.g., segregated housing based on ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, as endorsed by many students at Williams College and actually practiced at several universities). If colleges are truly in favor of inclusion and diversity, and opposed to bigotry, then they should never allow segregatedof housing, which reinforces tribalism and prevents students from mingling. Here’s what Strossen says about the salutary effects of getting to know members of other “tribes” (p. 178):

Social science studies have confirmed what everyday experience suggests: that the most effective way to decrease people’s negative attitudes toward members of any societal group is to give them an opportunity to get to know one another. As noted above, the “inter-group contact theory” was first formulated by Harvard professor Gordon Allport in his trailblazing 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice. Allport posited that interaction is especially constructive in setting such as school, work, and community groups, where people collaborate on common endeavors. Allport’s findings have been corroborated by a vast social science literature documenting that inter-group contact plays a vital role in reducing prejudice and promoting a more tolerant, integrated, and harmonious society.  The evidence demonstrates that contact overcomes prejudice and forges positive relationships among people from many different groups, including racial and ethnic groups, the elderly, LGBT persons, mentally ill people, persons with disabilities, and AIDS victims. A 1993 study of heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men, for example, found that the extent of contact predicted these attitudes better than any other variable, including political ideology, and a 2001 meta-analysis of 500 studies about contact theory concluded that greater understanding between groups can be facilitated by essentially any contact.

I see absolutely no justification for segregated housing in a university. Or rather, students give justifications, but I reject them.

The other position taken by Strossen is that universities should not themselves take ideological positions with respect to specific issues (BDS would be one of these). She explains why on pp. 174-176; here’s one quote:

In light of the foregoing academic freedom concerns, one might argue that university officials, acting in their official capacities, should refrain from engaging in any responsive counterspeech, even in response to speech that is clearly hateful. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone—who, like Kalven, is a leading First Amendment scholar and advocate—supports this stance, arguing that “[w]henever a university arrogates to itself the authority to ‘declare’ certain positions to be ‘true’ or ‘false,’ it necessarily chills the freedom of its faculty and student to take contrary—officially disapproved—positions.”

Let me suggest a plausible alternative strategy that both honors academic freedom and enables the university to stake out its own position on fundamental issues: a university should be able to engage in proactive counterspeech by issuing an affirmative statement of general principles that it champions, which should include not only freedom of speech and academic freedom, but also equality, diversity, and inclusivity. Such a broad, forward-looking statement should also explain that university officials’ “no comment” policy toward specific controversial expression by members of the campus community should not be construed as endorsin any such expression, but rather as reflecting the university’s fidelity to academic freedom.

This makes a lot of sense and, indeed, is the University of Chicago’s policy when students demand that it condemn specific policies or on-campus speeches.

This policy is relevant to an upcoming event at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, described in the following article in the Fitchburg (Massachusetts) Sentinel and Enterprise (click on screenshot):

UMass Amherst leaders are facing backlash for not taking a strong enough stance against an upcoming campus forum that many groups are condemning as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

The May 4 event, “Not Backing Down: Israel, Free Speech and the Battle for Palestinian Right,” will feature Roger Waters, the Pink Floyd rocker and advocate for Palestinian human rights, and Palestinian political activist Linda Sarsour.

“We are deeply concerned about the ‘Not Backing Down’ event taking place on campus, as are many UMass students, alumni, and community members,” UMass Hillel, the center of Jewish life on campus, said in a statement.

UMass Hillel added that it’s “particularly disconcerted” the event is being co-sponsored by university departments: the Department of Communication and the Department of Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies.

The Anti-Defamation League in a letter to UMass Amherst expressed “deep concern” about the event, also pointing to the co-sponsor departments.

Speakers at the event include hatemongers like Linda Sarsour, Roger Waters, and Marc Lamont Hill.  It’s clearly going to be a hatefest toward Israel tinged with anti-Semitism, but I support the University’s right to have it. As Campus Reform notes, “80 civil rights, education, religious, faculty, and student organizations have called on UMass to rescind its sponsorship of the event.”  I disagree with them.

So does the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, who issued a longish statement defending the right of the college to host the event, though it contributed no funds toward it. The event, after all, is sponsored by academic departments, including Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies (no surprise there!). I’ve put Chancellor Subbaswamy’s admirable statement, defending free speech and viewpoint neutrality, below the fold to reduce the TL; DR factor, but here’s one excerpt—the only misstep he makes:

The opinions expressed by participants at the May 4 event and other such events do not represent the views of the University. And, as has been stated repeatedly, the University remains firmly opposed to academic boycotts of any kind, including BDS.

This violates Strossen’s dictum above by giving a university position on BDS. Much as I despise BDS, which I consider an anti-Semitic movement whose aim is to obliterate the state of Israel, I think universities should take no official stand on it beyond affirming the kinds of general principles Strossen outlines.

These kinds of free-speech issues are constantly arising on campuses, and that’s why you should familiarize yourself with Strossen’s arguments and data.

Continue reading “Nadine Strossen’s new book on hate speech, why such speech should not be censored or banned, and its relevance to recent campus events” →