In OU search, free speech important
It’s no secret that free speech at American universities is under siege. At Middlebury College last March, protestors shouted down author Charles Murray. As he departed the venue, Murray and his host were subjected to a violent physical attack. On Feb. 2, 2017, two peaceful people holding signs supporting President Trump were physically assaulted on the University of Oklahoma campus in Norman. No one is immune from the forces of intolerance. Recently, an OU regent was forced to resign because he stated his personal conviction that homosexuality was immoral.
No learning can take place without intellectual freedom. The roots of the Western tradition are deep.
In the fifth century B.C., Pericles acknowledged the spirit of toleration essential for an open society by noting that Athenians did not become angry with people who thought or acted differently. And we have learned through the centuries that open and critical discussion is necessary for the progress of the human race. The minority viewpoint, no matter how offensive, is often proven in the long run to be the correct one.
One of the most significant aspects of David Boren’s legacy as OU president has been his unwavering commitment to free speech. For more than 20 years, Boren has steadfastly maintained a policy of complete free speech for all members of the OU community. As Boren explained in a 2001 letter in the OU Daily, “even in cases in which we may believe that comments are unfair, insensitive, or in bad taste, the appropriate response is never to silence the expression but rather to express our own opinion in return.”
Of course free speech also is a fundamental human right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. As the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Matal v. Tam (2017), “speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” But students, faculty and staff at OU shouldn’t have to resort to the federal courts to defend their rights. Intellectual and political freedom ought to be recognized as administrative policy and celebrated as central values of the university.
One of the reasons executive leadership is needed on this issue is that neither students nor faculty may be trusted with the conscience of the university. A recent poll of American college students revealed that 44 percent believe that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. Last spring, the faculty senate at OU embarrassed itself by recommending that cases of “hate speech” be reported to the campus police. What is “hate speech”? There is no objective or legal definition. “Hate speech” is anything a person might find offensive. It should be self-evident that no education can take place if people are able to silence any viewpoint they find objectionable by labeling it as “hate speech.”
A great university supports free inquiry. It doesn’t attempt to shield students from ideas they find offensive, but encourages open and critical debate of all viewpoints. As the OU regents consider the slate of candidates before them, they will have to balance many interests and concerns. Let’s hope they don’t forget about free speech.