Does Your University Stifle Free Speech, and Why it Matters
As centers of scientific inquiry, universities are presumably objective. But recent administrative reactions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bring this into question. So, how free is our speech?
The reactions of universities to student protests regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been met with severe reproach, both by students and the broader community of onlookers. Some universities have come under fire for screening certain films or pro-Palestine student groups. Sometimes they are even sued for doing so. Others, like Harvard, face trouble on both sides of the conflict. After releasing a strong solidarity statement they faced a backlash from their own community, and now express an observed rise in anti-semitism on their own campus.
Institutions are understandably conflicted, attempting to appease students and faculty while balancing political pressures that may determine federal funding. Although it’s easy to get lost in the heated politics, contention, and emotional rhetoric associated with this pressing conflict, taking a step back sheds a new light on the broader underlying issue.
As centers of scientific inquiry and objective skepticism, how did universities get so deeply entrenched in politics? What makes them prone to enable more intense polarization via bans and restrictions, as opposed to creating a space for constructive discussion? I’ll share the expertise and unique perspectives of Nico Perrino, the Executive Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), based on our recent interview. Read on to dive into the current state of free speech on campuses and what it means for you.
Free speech on campuses, then and now
Free speech issues on campuses are not new. As Nico Perrino reminds us, they date back to mid-twentieth century, like the 1960s Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley. The 1980s and 90s saw well-intentioned hate speech codes get adopted across hundreds of university campuses, which worked against the First Amendment right in the U.S. for free speech. With the infamous University of Pennsylvania Water Buffalo case in 1993 being one of the best examples of harassment codes being abused.
Although free speech has been a continual area of contention, the climate has intensified in recent years. FIRE, in combination with College Pulse, ranked 250 colleges in the U.S. based on free speech, using on 55,000+ student inputs. Many prestigious universities scored well below average, with Harvard sitting at the bottom spot. Various factors contribute to the stifling of free speech, including:
Bureaucratization of universities: there are more administrators than faculty who work towards different, often non-academic, goals
The black-and-white thinking fostered by social media, political polarization, and “cancel-culture”
A heightened concern for student mental health, sometimes leading to overprotective measures and increased censorship
Perrino believes all these forces together contribute to the escalating infringements on free speech, as well as an increase in violence and aggression.
Institutional Neutrality
Universities face immense pressure in taking political stances, often at the cost of open dialogue. This pressure is applied on administrative leaders and presidents, who are expected to make statements on contentious issues. Unfortunately, this public expectation means that even not making any statement is itself a signal. When statements are made, they also fall victim to tone-policing which seeks to criticize the subtle tone of an argument, rather than the content itself. The recent cases with solidarity statements regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict illustrates this well.
Although some of these statements are well-intentioned, they compromise the neutrality of institutions. When universities make a political stance, they may impede an open atmosphere of discussion and inadvertently fuel more polarization. Moreover, public institutions in the U.S. must uphold the First Amendment right to free speech. Private universities aren’t bound in the same way, but generally do maintain the same values, as they prove important for academic freedom. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that nearly all the lowest-ranked institutions for free speech are indeed private.
Neutrality enables institutions to recognize the significance of certain events, particularly as it pertains to their own institution, without expressing a stance. The University of Chicago’s statement at the onset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a well-cited example of a statement done well. It recognizes the event and shares important resources with its affected students and staff. Dartmouth College took this responsibility one step further by hosting forums led by Jewish and Middle Eastern studies professors and by encouraging active discussion regarding the conflict. By fostering constructive discourse, they could uphold the fundamental objectives of the university to preserve, disseminate, and create knowledge.
Student Mental Health: Whose responsibility is it?
Concern for student mental health is one of the key motivators behind impeding free speech in the name of protecting students from harsh language. However, this can have severe repercussions, as Perrino puts it: "Students are conflating words with violence — if words are violence, you can use violence against words.”
Check out this edition of The Scoop for more on the state of student mental health.
Take responsibility for your own free speech
What can students do?
For students, understanding the importance of open debate and discourse is key. Perrino emphasizes that "Freedom requires being able to hear what the other side has to say. Censorship is a lack of faith in what you have to say and the power of discourse that serves the fundamentals of our civilization."
Although some political topics may trigger extreme emotional reactions, it doesn’t justify violent and disruptive behavior, Perrino argues. But, the reason is far more nuanced than simply being “wrong”. Not only does it enable the opposing side to use the same measures, but it stifles the very freedom of speech which is the bridge to resolving the most challenging of issues. Perrino references a well-known U.S. abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, attempting to give a speech in Boston in the 1860s, only to have his meeting overcome by a pro-slavery mob.
“Free speech entails two rights,” Perrino comments, “the willingness to speak and the willingness for others to listen.”
In this political and educational climate, students may be in the best position to strongly influence and elevate their rights to free speech. By participating in and upholding open discourse, students can transform the polarized atmosphere from one of hostility to one of real progress in bridging dissenting opinions and forming vital solutions.
"Students should go to college with strong convictions loosely held." - Nico Perrino
What can faculty and staff do?
Faculty, administrators and institutional leaders all have pivotal roles to play in the protection and improvement of free speech on campuses. While university presidents and executives have the most bureaucratic authority when it comes to defining policies and actions, when they falter, the impetus shifts to the staff level.
“Culture: if its not created from the top down, it comes from the bottom-up.” - Nico Perrino
This can take many shapes and forms, but Perrino shares a few strategies faculty and staff can take advantage of, like:
Better hiring practices which prioritize free speech and intellectual diversity
Administrative action to discourage disruptive and violent behavior
Faculty playing a larger role in institutional governance
Teaching more dissenting opinions in the classroom
Cultural change is slow, but even small-scale actions can make a remarkable impact. Consider the Princeton professor who, after assigning a term paper and finding the majority of students submitted socialist-leaning reports (because the professor himself was known to be socialist-leaning) decided to mix it up. To ensure they could represent both sides of the topic, the professor assigned them a book that ran counter to his own beliefs. This is a prime example of not limiting students to any singular view, but instead exposing them to the various arguments and equipping them with the critical thinking necessary to discern one from the other. One of the students, Alan Charles Kors, was, in fact, so deeply moved by the book, he found it changed his life. Kors would go on to defend Eden Jacobowitz in the aforementioned Water Buffalo case, and co-found FIRE.
“That’s what I think the role of faculty is, to provide you with the wealth of knowledge and perspective that exists within any given discipline. To take those perspectives and play them off each other.” - Nico Perrino
Additionally, faculty can turn to organizations which help support free speech on campuses. In addition to FIRE, there’s also the Heterodox Academy, which hosts communities across North America and offer resources and collaboration opportunities. For administrators, several standards also exist, such as the “Gold Standard for Freedom of Expression” that The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) maintains. The Chicago Statement, originally the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” from the University of Chicago, is also a popular reference for institutions committing to free speech policies. Over 100 other universities have officially endorsed the same statement.
Although free speech on campus is simple in theory, in practice it is a deeply nuanced and emotionally-charged topic, as the recent U.S. House hearing on antisemitism illustrates. However, it takes only a few strategic choices to start forming bridges and fostering a better climate when it comes to freedom of expression. Like some of the other issues we tackle in The Scoop — such as academic integrity, citation troubles, and inaccurate university rankings — although institutional change is vital, individuals have the power to take responsibility of the situation by changing how they act now.
Do you feel free to speak on your university campus? Is this issue as prevalent for those outside of the U.S., or does it take on a different nature? Share your perspective in the comments, or get in touch. The Scoop is always seeking new perspectives on the state of academia, research and more.
The Scoop would like to warmly thank Nico Perrino for his thought-provoking perspective and his valuable contributions to this edition of The Scoop. Learn more about this topic by following his Free Speech Podcast.
The financial and political lobby wants to stifle the university in order to silence the voice of the university family, as it is today the only party capable of steadfastness and confrontation in light of the media closure and the blatant bias in covering the events of this war.
The Gaza war will inevitably be an intellectual and philosophical turning point to reconsider many issues, most notably the concept of self-defense, resistance, and international law.
The Gaza War summed up what happened in World War II. The aggressor party claimed that it had suffered for 7 years to prove its existence, including killing, displacement, starvation, torture, captivity, forced displacement, siege, and genocide. Today it is reproducing it in just 60 days with models more barbaric than those. Which he lived through yesterday, leaving more than 19 thousand dead, including children, women and the elderly, under the call of self-defense against a people who wanted to prove their existence by what international law entitles them to resist attacks and settlement.