It’s time for both universities and their students to recognize that the principle of free speech can and often will conflict with the principle of “inclusivity”, for any time someone is offend by what another person says—or if a statement conflicts with someone’s ideology or values—that person feels “excluded”. Nowadays, of course, exclusion in this way, synonymous with “offense”, is equated with “harm”—or even “violence.” That’s a false equivalence, degrading the meaning of the latter two terms.
And when we have a conflict like this, most thoughtful people have decided that freedom of speech must trump “inclusivity”, most often abrogated by what students call “hate speech.” For anybody can claim offense about anything, and, as I’ve often said, one person’s “hate speech” is another person’s “debatable speech”, i.e., free speech. A few examples: criticism of abortions, of Islam, of affirmative action, and of the claim that transgender people are absolutely identical to members of the biological sex whose gender they’ve adopted. All of these have been deemed “hate speech.” Should they be banned? Not on your life.
Now I hasten to add that I find racist speech abhorrent, and would do what I can to counteract it, but through counter-speech, not through banning speech I don’t like. Should a student be able to call Jews “Hebes” or “Yids” and accuse them of being money-grubbing power-mongers seeking to take over the world? Yes, of course they should be allowed, even though I’m a secular Jew. Those words are offensive to me, but I wouldn’t for the world suggest that the person who said them be punished. I’d just say he’s an idiot. Ditto with someone saying “Gas the Jews.” That is legal speech, for it doesn’t present an imminent and predictable danger of real harm.
But the editors of the Princeton student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian, don’t agree. They say that a university that fosters diversity and inclusivity must ban “racist speech” (which is of course undefined). The editorial is signed by all the members of the Princetonian editorial board save a brave dissenter: one Zachariah Sippy.
Their intent is clear: punish people who exercise their free-speech rights to say things considered racist by others. (All quotes from the paper.)
We have received many messages professing the University’s commitment to the ongoing fight for racial equality in the United States. But actions speak louder than words. What does it mean to increase faculty and staff diversity, as President Eisgruber announced he intends to do, if the community they join does not stand against racism they may encounter?
. . .These ideas cause demonstrable harm to students of color who make up the University community. They force students to question their place on our campus, because they suggest Black people’s intellectual or behavioral inferiority make them incapable of succeeding in higher education.
. . . Those who use free speech to defend racist ideas are essentially saying that it is acceptable for Black students to exist in a perpetual state of discomfort, leaving them vulnerable to numerous traumatic experiences, in the name of an abstract principle that is prioritized over the well-being of our community members.
I would suggest that any time you see the word “harm” in a piece like this, you should mentally substitute the word “offense”.
Read the editorial, published a month ago, by clicking on the screenshot:
To try to sneak around freedom of speech, the editors suggest that Princeton already bans hate speech in its own regulations. From the paper:
Time and time again the University has acted as an enemy to justice, abusing its powers by deploying free speech language when addressing charges of racism. So it is time for a shift in power. Written in the free speech policy is the stipulation that speech “directly incompatible with the functioning of the University” can be restricted.
But if you look at that free speech policy (which isn’t by the way, linked to the article, you find that speech incompatible with university functioning is the same type of speech that courts have ruled is not protected by the First Amendment.
From Princeton’s Statement on Freedom of Expression:
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
This is in fact word-for-word identical to the University of Chicago’s Principles of Free Expression:
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
So no, just as Chicago wouldn’t ban racist speech, or any legal speech, so Princeton wouldn’t, either. This has gotten the editors’ knickers in a twist.
To further underscore the editors’ misunderstanding of free speech, they conflate sit-ins that block Princeton’s access to buildings, and are against University regulations, with free speech:
Yet, Nassau Hall’s [the Princeton administration building] supposedly unwavering conviction that free speech — even that which makes one uncomfortable — is our institution’s lifeblood fell apart when administrators were made to feel uncomfortable. In the fall of 2015, the University threatened student activists from the Black Justice League with disciplinary consequences. The administration further denied these students secure accommodations, even when they received death threats. That is the very definition of suppressing speech.
No, you chowderheads! The activists were threatened not because they were saying anything particular, but because they were illegally staging a sit-in in Nassau Hall. You have the right to say what you want, but you don’t have the right to occupy University space against regulations. That is known as civil disobedience, and comes with the stipulation that you have to suffer the legal or disciplinary consequences. I have a right to protest Donald Trump’s policies, but I don’t have the right to do so by entering the Capitol and expatiating from the Senate floor.
The students don’t seem to understand that a University can be opposed to racism, and enact policies to prevent it, and to foster inclusion, diversity, and equality of opportunity, yet at the same time foster a strong policy of free speech. The university doesn’t promulgate racism (I seriously doubt that Princeton is “structurally racist”), but it doesn’t punish speech deemed racist—unless it constitutes personal and repeated harassment. But that kind of harassment is already illegal.
I thought Princeton students were supposed to be smart. I guess they are, but these editors are also ignorant. One would think that, of all people, editors of a newspaper would understand the meaning of “freedom of speech.”
For some happier news, Inside Higher Education today has a small piece noting that the number of universities that have adopted the Chicago Principles on free speech continues to grow.
Now, there’s a bit of oblivious irony from those advocating for the action of banning words.
The tiki-torch-toting group chanting “Jews will not replace us.” may want to consider what it says to many folks. In terms of the (mainly petty-ful) criminal records of your “leadership”, who would want to replace you?
It means they are encountering community members who don’t agree with them. In terms of university hires (vs. students), it means the University is not using (much of) an ideological litmus test. Which is IMO a good thing.
I oppose harassment, as does the school’s own free speech code. Unwanted, repetitive, individual racist comments can and should be stopped and punished as a form of illegal harassment.
But if by ‘ideas’ you’re talking about broader, more intellectual concepts – such as opposition to affirmative action, or someone challenging the BLM movement – then yes, students should be discomfited. It’s almost fair to say that if a university isn’t intellectually discomfiting it’s students, if it’s not challenging them to question their preconceived ideals, then it isn’t doing it’s job correctly.
To quote our ex-President (U of C) Hannah Gray, “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.”
The way in which zealotry for “inclusion” turns with lightning speed into exclusion reminds me of certain
episodes of about 100 years ago. In 1917, Lenin & Co. deployed the slogan “all power to the Soviets”. Once in power, they systematically undercut and gerrymandered the soviets, disbanded those in which the Bolsheviks did not maintain majorities, and subordinated them all to the Bolshevik-dominated Council of Peoples’ Commissars. And after agitating in 1917 for elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks in power dissolved it at gunpoint at its second meeting in January, 1918. The path from Inclusion to Exclusion can be, and has been, a very short one.
🐾🐾
“I thought Princeton students were supposed to be smart.”
It seems like lots of today’s students at Ivy League colleges are coming down with the same mental malfunctions. If this keeps up employers might become wary of hiring graduates from those schools. What’s the point of hiring a graduate from a super-elite institution if they’re likely to be a basket case?
And if these students are really serious about checking their privilege, perhaps they should start by daily acknowledging their privilege in attending institutions that disproportionally supply the members of the ruling class of the United States.
I’ve been thinking about whether this may play out eventually as a major-related issue rather than a school-related issue.
Let’s say you’re a student who fervently thinks that social justice is the critical issue of our time, and that’s what you want to spend your young adult years focusing on. That’s your cause. Aren’t you likely to go into a major that lets you carry on that focus? It’s hard to see such a person planning to spend the rest of their life in a lab. Or solving math equations. Or going to med school, with it’s intense time commitment. There are a lot of careers that don’t lend themselves to being easily combined with social activism.
So I wonder if employers may find that more nuts n’ bolts majors produce more practical workers. If so, a Princeton biologist may do okay. Unfortunately however, if this IS what happens, there will be two downsides to it that I can see:
1. It’ll make the humanities vs. science friction and competition over university resources worse
2. It could mean the sciences suffer a brain drain of POCs, exacerbating under-representation in the short term, as good POCs from the ‘woke generation’ view the sciences as not providing them the opportunity to pursue a subject they feel passionately about.
I’m just blue-skyying about that though. And I kinda hope I’m wrong.
“I have a right to protest Donald Trump’s policies, but I don’t have the right to do so by entering the Capitol and expatiating from the Senate floor.” – nicely put!
There is always the same problem with banning speech, who gets to decide what is banned? The students may win this time but what happens in the future when it’s them that are being banned?
You keep us up to date with these outrages – and I agree with you every time, but sometimes I wonder if we’re the victims of the availability bias.
Do we look for these anti-free speech examples, this woke-crazy-itis and find them, and think it is more of a pandemic than a localized infection – mainly in the top brand name schools?
I’m still trying to work that one out.
You are correct, professor, that these examples (which set my 1st Ammdt loving teeth on edge) *are* increasing with time, but I’m curious as to whether it is an overall trend or a smaller glitch in the larger matrix?
sincerely,
D.A., J.D., NYC
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/06/10/photos-of-readers-93/
Sounds like they believe that:
“Free speech is the right to educated speech. If you utilize your right to ‘freedom of speech’ but then are socially or politically apathetic, you don’t vote, educate yourself on social issues, if you are not involved in the community, if you are not involved in being a citizen, an educated citizen, you have no right to free speech.”
Which was posted on YouTube by an unidentified Canadian student in 2012. Sadly they got a lot of flack for it and deleted the video.
Perhaps some of that flak was justified? It’s hard to tell without seeing the original source material but as someone who is socially awkward, working all the hours available to try and make ends meet / support a family and whose vote is meaningless under a first-past-the-post constituency system, I would have no right to free speech under this model.
Aside from that, how is an ‘educated citizen’ defined? Tertiary education? Or perhaps simply being a regular reader of partisan newspapers is sufficent (who regularly trot out the “You are an inadequate person if you fail to educate yourself by reading this paper daily!” line in a transparent effort to boost their revenue)?
What does ‘educate yourself on social issues’ mean? I ask because this is almost always used in the context of “If you don’t agree with my social politics, you need to educate yourself until you do agree.” Is there some sort of required readining list I have to complete in order to be allowed to enunciate a thought or an opinion?
It seems to me that this sort of statement boils down to ‘If you aren’t wealthy enough to have a degree, have plenty of spare time and energy available because life is pretty easy or aren’t sufficiently in line with my politics, you don’t deserve to have a voice.’
It reminds me of the sort of thinking that was used to keep poor people ‘in their place’ in my country (and, to an extent, still is). It’s also pretty ageist and, if the right to vote and/or easy access to education/research materials/time is required, sexist too (until relatively recently).
Perhaps we should more clearly and narrowly define what hate speech is.
Accusing Jews of being money-grabbing power-mongers seeking to take over the world is one thing but calling out to gas them is something else.
Perhaps the harm done is not immediate but Europe had centuries of this kind of ‘free speech’ before the Holocaust happened.
Hate speech, in my opinion, should be defined more narrowly, in the sense that it comes down to threats to harm people, like intimidation and death threats.
That should be punishable in my opinion, but if the threat is vague and undefined, the punishment should be appropriate.
Newsletter- December 18, 2020
https://theliberacy.com/2020/12/18/newsletter-december-18-2020/