Penamerica Principles Oncampus Freespeech

of speech curtailed, there is not, as some accounts have PEN!AMERICA! suggested, a pervasive “crisis” for free speech on campus. Unfortunately, respect for divergent viewpoints has PRINCIPLES! not been a consistent hallmark of recent debates on ma!ers of diversity and inclusion on campus. Though ON!CAMPUS! sometimes overblown or oversimplified, there have been many instances where free speech has been suppressed FREE!SPEECH or chilled, a pa!ern that is at risk of escalating absent concerted action. In some cases, students and university leaders alike have resorted to contorted and trou- The State of Free Speech on Campus bling formulations in trying to reconcile the principles One of the most talked-about free speech issues in the of free inquiry, inclusivity, and respect for all. There are United States has li"le to do with the First Amendment, also particular areas where legitimate efforts to enable the legislature, or the courts. A set of related controversies full participation on campus have inhibited speech. The and concerns have roiled college and university campuses, discourse also reveals, in certain quarters, a worrisome dis- pi"ing student activists against administrators, faculty, and, missiveness of considerations of free speech as the retort almost as o#en, against other students. The clashes, cen- of the powerful or a diversion from what some consider tering on the use of language, the treatment of minorities to be more pressing issues. Alongside that is evidence and women, and the space for divergent ideas, have shone of a passive, tacit indifference to the risk that increased a spotlight on fundamental questions regarding the role sensitivity to differences and offense—what some call “po- and purpose of the university in American society. Those litical correctness”—can bleed into significant levels of wary of what they see as encroachments on the free- self-censorship that suppress dissenting ideas. dom to express unpopular ideas worry that the campus’s That said, the dialogues, debates, and efforts at greater role as a marketplace of ideas, a guardian of intellectual inclusion on many campuses have the potential to help integrity, and a breeding ground for new generations of root out entrenched biases that have impeded the par- free thinkers is at risk. Supporters of new guidelines and ticipation of members of marginalized groups. These intensified vigilance regarding speech-related offenses conversations and controversies can help unleash and argue, by contrast, that in an increasingly diverse country amplify new voices that can enrich debates on campus struggling to eradicate persistent racism and other forms and in wider society, expanding free speech for every- of discrimination, norms governing language and discourse one’s benefit. While the calls for change are sometimes must evolve to effect greater inclusion and equality. Many framed in ways that appear inconsistent with free speech, on both sides emphasize that the campus is an incubator there are also instances in which justifiable and legitimate for young adults, not only educating them but also nurtur- demands (some of which may come across as challenging ing and shaping their identities, self-confidence, and sense or hostile to traditions or norms) are wrongly dismissed of community. These debates are occurring amid other because they’re said to be motivated by “political cor- changes on university campuses, including the rapidly rectness” run amok. increasing diversification of student bodies; challenges to At times protests and forms of expression are treated traditional protections for academic freedom, including the as if they are incursions on free speech when in fact they decline of tenure; growing financial pressures on students are manifestations of free speech. Some entreaties for or and universities alike; and the rise of digital technologies against the use of particular language (even if the terms and social media. sound neologistic, overly politically correct, or otherwise While free speech is alive and well on campus, it is not distasteful to some ears) should be recognized as adap- free from threats, and must be vigilantly guarded if its tations to students whose ethnic and racial backgrounds, continued strength is to be assured. When waged with upbringing, and priorities may bear scant resemblance respect for different viewpoints, the movements afoot on to the populations that dominated the university cam- campus to advance equality and counter discrimination pus during the second half of the 20th century. While can open up the university as a place where all students liberal values and principles remain fundamental, the and faculty can participate more fully across racial, reli- implications of these precepts necessarily evolve from gious, gender, sexual orientation, disability, political, and generation to generation, reflecting social changes and social boundaries. The challenge for campuses is to find new norms. No cohort has the power to freeze the inter- ways to expand all students’ participation in intellectual pretation of values such as liberalism, academic freedom, life, inside and outside the classroom, without limiting the or even free expression, and new ways of thinking deserve speech of one another. PEN America’s view, as of Octo- to be understood and considered, rather than dismissed. ber 2016, is that while the current controversies merit In PEN America’s view, the drive for greater equality a!ention and there have been some troubling incidences and inclusion on campus is to be strongly encouraged. 62 PEN!AMERICA Free expression should be recognized as a principle that can range free, dissent is welcomed, and se!led wisdom will overwhelmingly serve not to exclude or marginal- is reconsidered. To keep the campus as open as possible, ize minority voices but rather to amplify them. Where speech and expression should be approached with an principles of free expression have been subordinated awareness of these ambient inhibiting forces, and with an inappropriately, as has happened on certain campuses— effort to avoid approaching debates in ways that further impinging on openness, dissent, or intellectual freedom— foreclose speech. calling out and fighting these encroachments are essential The university administration holds special authority as to ensuring that the core value of free speech remains both speaker and inhibitor of speech. When the university intact even as the campus evolves to be!er reflect a speaks out, its voice carries force. When the university changing America. But cries of “free speech” have on constrains speech—by, say, promulgating a policy or disin- occasion been used to refute or delegitimize protest viting a speaker—it does so not just as one of many actors and outrage—to dismiss the forms that speech takes and vying in a debate but as a locus of power that all those thereby avoid considering its substance. Yet protest and on campus ignore at their peril. In the case of a public outrage, however infelicitously or unfamiliarly it may be university, the administration carries the mantle of gov- expressed, must also be protected as free speech. ernment prerogative. But even private universities have The discussion that follows elaborates PEN America’s the power to hire, fire, suspend, and expel, dominating key findings and the priorities and recommendations that all levels of the campus. Moreover, universities, whether stem from this analysis. public or private, hold heavy sway over society at large through the influence of their scholars, their alumni, and Campus Protagonists: Administration, the students they educate and send out into the world. Faculty, Students When a university’s values are breached, its precepts Campus speech controversies have no consistent protag- threatened, or its constituents violated in a significant onist or antagonist. University presidents, administrators, way, it is incumbent on top administrators to speak out. faculty, staff, and students can all be cast both in the role If the offense came in the form of speech, it may be ap- of speaker, and that of inhibitor of speech. These permu- propriate for them to condemn the message, even while tations vary by controversy, requiring all parties to think defending the speaker’s right to express it. carefully about their roles and obligations when it comes The old adage, coined by Beatrice Evelyn Hall as a to openness, inclusion, and free speech. characterization of Voltaire’s approach to free speech— Especially in the era of social media and digital com- that one can disapprove of what is said while staunchly munications, legitimate, protected speech can have the defending the right to say it—is central to the role of effect of chilling other speech. A faculty member subtly the university. Following this precept, the university can signaling that certain views are disfavored in the classroom both demonstrate essential solidarity with those who may or in wri"en work, student protests deterring an invitation be justifiably offended by speech and uphold its role as to a certain speaker, or fear of criticism on social media a guardian of free speech rights for all. In some cases, preventing a student from publishing an op-ed in a stu- concerns over fueling a controversy or even a"racting dent newspaper are all circumstances in which speech negative press can silence an administration. University can deter speech. presidents and top officials may be so fearful of alienating At times, protests by those who lack the power to one or another constituency that they fail to speak out formally sanction speakers can feel as punitiveas official when speech controversies rock their campuses. Amid discipline. Being mobbed, doxxed, or shamed online for fundamental debates concerning the role and values of speech that is thought to be objectionable can be the emo- the university, top leaders should not abdicate their duty tional, psychological, social, and professional equivalent to provide principled guidance. Even those who do not of a heavy punishment.

Load more