I believe in free speech. Full stop.
I believe that free speech on college campuses—which is to say the free and open exchange of ideas—is absolutely essential to the pursuit of truth, advancing the cause of justice, and preserving democratic values.
And I’m concerned about the direction and the tenor of the national discussion about free speech on college campuses. But not for the reasons that most of the pundits and proselytizers and purveyors of doom warning of the imminent end of democracy would have you believe.
I’m concerned because I think the way the debate has been framed is wrong. More often than not we have been led to believe that we can either have campuses that defend freedom, champion intellectual rigor, and advance the quest for knowledge or diverse, welcoming learning communities that value, care about, and guide students in a holistic way. But we can’t have both. We’re told that free speech on campus is threatened by political correctness run amok. Others say the safety and emotional well-being of students from historically underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds is put at risk by ignorant, pseudo-academics peddling hate and cruelty under the guise of flawed scholarship. And college students are routinely derided in the media as mollycoddled, anti-intellectual “mobbists” (see David Brooks 3/8/18) unwilling to engage any idea that is different from their own.
To be sure, the conversation around campus free speech is challenging because it entails a wide range of issues (freedom of expression, civility, diversity and inclusion, political scapegoating, generational divide, and bullying to name just a few) that are often conflated and regularly exploited to advance the political perspective of whoever happens to be making the argument at any given moment. But that isn’t the part that concerns me. What concerns me is that amid all the partisan jockeying by people on both sides of the political spectrum, the point that many students are trying to make is going largely unnoticed.
If you believe the prevailing narrative, the students who threaten free expression at American colleges are liberal snowflakes, intolerant of opposing viewpoints and bent on watering down intellectual inquiry in the name of their idea of “social justice” (always in air quotes when spoken) and “safe spaces” (said through a mocking sneer).
According to Dr. Drew Pinsky appearing on Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld Show, these students take “freedom and democracy for granted” because they are “brittle narcissists” who “feel tiny and little inside,” and what they really need is to develop some grit and “get over it.” Brooks, in his “student mobbist” piece, does concede that today’s college students’ “ theory of social change is at least comprehensible given the era they inhabit.” But, he suggests that they subscribe to a world view in which malice and oppression on the part of those in positions of power are the root of all public problems so the solution is to “defeat the powerful.”
Okay, there are extremists on the left just like there are extremists on the right and no doubt, many of them do subscribe to a defeat-the-powerful philosophy. And those voices tend to be the loudest and to get the most attention.
There is, however, another whole subset of students who oppose hosting certain kinds of speakers and events on their campuses for entirely different reasons. Smart, thoughtful, caring students who understand, value, and support free speech. They do not condone, nor would they personally participate in shouting down speakers, and they completely reject violence of any kind. They are students who, if forced to choose between limiting the non-violent expression of ideas – no matter how vile or objectionable – or safeguarding the notion of a welcoming, diverse, and emotionally inclusive educational community, would choose to protect freedom of expression. But they reject the idea that such a choice is actually necessary.
They don’t see invitations to speakers like Charles Murray and Richard Spencer and Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos as legitimate efforts to engage ideas and promote thoughtful conversation among members of their campus communities. Rather, they see such events as cynical political acts intended to provoke precisely the reaction they almost always get. More importantly, they see such events as mean-spirited acts of cruelty towards others in their community, and that pisses them off.
For these students the reaction isn’t philosophical, it’s personal. They are young people with a profound sense of right and wrong who are vastly more accepting of and welcoming to those who are different from them than any previous generation. They are not the least bit afraid of or unwilling to engage with unpleasant or unpopular ideas. From their perspective, they are calling out wanton and intentional cruelty. In their minds, they are making better, more just communities. They may not be right. But they aren't wrong.
Now just to be clear, I don’t know how it is possible to protect free expression and limit campus speakers based on the motives of those who invite them. As history has shown, when individual rights are limited, already marginalized and less powerful groups almost always suffer more. And, determining who exactly gets to say which speakers are legitimate and whose motives are pure is fraught in all kinds of ways. So, ultimately, I think we have to err on the side of allowing controversial speakers and speech on college campuses regardless of our perceptions of their relative value or the intentions of those who invite them.
But these students’ impulse towards kindness and instinct to call out cruelty should not be turned into a punchline. Perhaps those of us with a more traditional view of the boundaries of free expression are the dogmatic ones – either unwilling or just lacking the imagination to consider a different way. Or maybe there is no other way, but in searching for one we will manage to be kinder and more honest with one another. In either case, the task before us as students and educators is to find a way to channel those instincts and impulses in a direction that leads to a better brand of public discourse than is currently winning the day.