Let’s talk, not censor
What colleges, legislators get wrong in ongoing debate about free speech
Free speech is an essential element of democracy, and both colleges and legislators say it matters. So why do both groups also seem to want to limit speech?
As a former college president, I have seen these campus tensions firsthand.
The right has noticed that both students and faculty lean left and that some conservative students fear speaking up in this “unsafe” environment: Indeed, some speakers have not been allowed to speak on campuses at all. With very good intentions, universities have become increasingly sensitive to student feelings about safety and belonging over the last decade, with virtually all of that attention devoted to historically marginalized groups.
The right, however, has correctly noted two problems with this approach. First, the concern for safety and belonging has not seemed to extend equally to everyone. Second, safety and free speech are a tension to manage, not absolutes; a greater focus on safety can diminish what can be said.
At the same time, state legislators have sought to solve these problems in the worst possible way: with a wave of censorship of their own. Free speech advocacy organization PEN America, whose “Champions of Higher Education” initiative counts me as one of its supporters, has tracked the introduction of over 100 educational gag orders — legislative bans on speech and ideas relating to race, gender, and identity — in states across the country. Nine of these bans are currently law in eight states, restricting the speech of thousands of faculty and students.
The Israel-Hamas War has shined a bright light on the tensions on campus. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Harvard flew Ukrainian flags in solidarity. This was a relatively uncontroversial move on a college campus; if any Russian students were offended, no one seemed to care. After the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, many Jewish students reasonably expected to see Israeli flags flying in solidarity. This time, however, another group objected. Campuses were faced with the impossible choice of which students to make uncomfortable.
We are so paralyzed by whom we might offend that even condemning racism, antisemitism or genocide “needs context.”
Part of the problem rests with our polarized zerosum politics: Condemnation of any action by either side is seen as picking a side. We are so paralyzed by whom we might offend that even condemning racism, antisemitism or genocide “needs context.” We should be able to
Part of the problem rests with our polarized zero-sum politics: Condemnation of any action by either side is seen as picking a side. We are so paralyzed by whom we might offend that even condemning racism, antisemitism or genocide “needs context.”
support a person, group or country, without having to agree with everything they do and vice-versa, but this leads to the other part of the problem: We’ve lost the habit of requiring discomfort and with it some of the fuel for free speech.
Discomfort is necessary for both physical and mental growth, for learning and for democracy. To be clear, belonging and psychological safety are the essential foundation for productive learning and work. In both classrooms and corporations, however, that safety is supposed to allow for and lead to conflict; when you trust your trainer, manager, teacher or colleagues, you are willing to take more risks. Trust makes discomfort possible and productive.
Recent events have
made it clear that more dialogue and discomfort is needed in America. Universities must remain committed to welcoming students of every background, but we know we must also redouble our efforts to increase their tolerance for the discomfort that comes from encountering different ideas. It must be both, not either/or.
In return, perhaps legislators could agree that gag orders and trying to limit what is read or taught in college classrooms is also an attack on free speech. It is true: there are some faculty who want to indoctrinate students, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of faculty are trying to keep their politics out of the classroom and want students to learn to think for themselves.
Real dialogue requires discomfort and for both sides to admit the excruciatingly uncomfortable possibility we were wrong. Both right and left are committed to protecting some groups from harm, and that is reasonable.
All of us, however, need to accept that one of the risks of more free speech and diversity of ideas, is that we might encounter ideas that make us uncomfortable or even move us to change our minds.
Only by recommitting to increasing both trust and discomfort, both free speech and safety, can we live up to the ideals in our Constitution.