Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Post by Bootstrap »

The article Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University discusses the limits of free speech in a university setting, and ways to balance the need to fight hate speech against the need to freely exchange ideas in academic settings.

This article has been enormously influential, I wouldn't be surprised if most universities today have practices in line with its conclusions.
Let there be no doubt that hate speech on campus should be fought with all the vigor a university can muster. Hate speech is an abomination, a rape of human dignity. And let there be no inhibition in punishing hate speech in any of the contexts in which speech may be punished under recognized first amendment doctrines-as when it poses a clear and present danger of violence, or when it is intertwined with actual discriminatory conduct.

But outside those narrowly defined first amendment categories, the battle against hate speech will be fought most effectively through persuasive and creative educational leadership rather than through punishment and coercion. The conflict felt by most administrators, faculty, and students of good will on most American campuses is that we hate hate speech as much as we love free speech. The conflict, however, is not irreconcilable. It is most constructively resolved by a staunch commitment to free expression principles, supplemented with an equally vigorous attack on hate speech in all its forms, emphasizing energetic leadership and education on the academic values of tolerance, civility, and respect for human dignity, rather than punitive and coercive measures.' In this respect both of the grand ideas of a university are vindicated. The sense of a community of scholars, an island of reason and tolerance, is the pervasive ethos. But that ethos should be advanced with education, not coercion. It should be the dominant voice of the university within the marketplace of ideas; but it should not preempt that marketplace.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Post by Josh »

A major challenge right now is when many people feel that any speech that does not affirm homosexual or transsexual behaviour is "hate speech".
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:A major challenge right now is when many people feel that any speech that does not affirm homosexual or transsexual behaviour is "hate speech".
But I think this is a matter of law, not of feelings. And I don't think the law says failing to affirm these behaviors is hate speech. You can feel that the law should be whatever you want, that doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

A professor does not need to agree with gay activists, fundamentalist Christians, conspiracy theorists, socialists, libertarians, etc., but a university is a setting where you are likely to be dealing with all of them at the same time. And the professor may fall into some of these categories too.

At a university, all of these people need to be free to have their opinions. Hate speech directed toward any of them cannot be tolerated.

Universities have been dealing with this issue for a very, very long time.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Post by MattY »

Bootstrap wrote:At a university, all of these people need to be free to have their opinions. Hate speech directed toward any of them cannot be tolerated.

Universities have been dealing with this issue for a very, very long time.
Well, they often don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. And there are problems with the idea of categorizing some speech as "hate speech" and off-limits, including the problem that Josh mentioned.

First of all, consider what FIRE says about the state of religious freedom and free speech on college campuses:
https://www.thefire.org/campus-rights/
Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom and a human right, and there’s no place that this right should be more valued and protected than America’s colleges and universities. A university exists to educate students and advance the frontiers of human knowledge, and does so by acting as a “marketplace of ideas” where ideas compete. The intellectual vitality of a university depends on this competition—something that cannot happen properly when students or faculty members fear punishment for expressing views that might be unpopular with the public at large or disfavored by university administrators.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s campuses, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, “free speech zones” confining free speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress speech on a case-by-case basis are common today in academia.
...
Religious liberty is the right to follow the faith of your choice—or to follow no faith at all. Religious liberty is a cornerstone of our nation and is the very first freedom guaranteed to Americans by the Bill of Rights. Yet on many college and university campuses, the right to associate on the basis of religious belief and even the right to express those beliefs is under attack. Under the guise of “nondiscrimination” policies, religious groups are often told that they may not choose the membership or leadership of their groups using religious criteria. Other students who merely express religious beliefs in public are condemned and even punished for “hate speech” or “intolerance.”
Then there's this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... nd-sillier
Last week, the New York Times ran a piece titled “Campuses Cautiously Train Freshmen against Subtle Insults.” It opens by recounting a question-and-answer session with Clark’s microaggressions czar, chief diversity officer Sheree Marlowe. A student — who begins by saying she’s “really scared to ask this” — asks Miss Marlowe if, when she’s in her car, or with a group of white friends, its “okay” to sing along with music that uses the “N word.”

Miss Marlowe’s answer, says the New York Times, is an “unequivocal ‘no.’”

Also verboten: asking Asians students whom “you don’t know” for help with math homework; asking a black student if he plays basketball; asking a student whose race you’re unsure of about his race. This is all pretty standard stuff on the modern campus. But Clark has entered new territory by expanding the category of forbidden aggressions to include thought crimes: “Showing surprise when a ‘feminine’ woman says she is a lesbian” is, according to Clark, an aggressive act.
I prefer what the University of Chicago has to say about its speech policy. For example, in the report of its Committee on Freedom of Expression:
http://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/site ... Report.pdf
Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and
quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to
shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even
deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all
members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a
climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used
as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable
those ideas may be to some members of our community.

The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course,
mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University
may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual,
that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial
privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the
functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the
time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary
activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of
freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used
in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free
and open discussion of ideas.

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or
even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral,
or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not
for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act
on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously
contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the
University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and
responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.

As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression,
members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle
of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to
criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest
speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or
otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even
loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a
lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom
when others attempt to restrict it.
And then there's this:

Image
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University

Post by Bootstrap »

buckeyematt2 wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:At a university, all of these people need to be free to have their opinions. Hate speech directed toward any of them cannot be tolerated.

Universities have been dealing with this issue for a very, very long time.
Well, they often don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. And there are problems with the idea of categorizing some speech as "hate speech" and off-limits, including the problem that Josh mentioned.
It's a very hard thing to do well. Imagine this: you have a campus full of bright teenagers, all full of opinions and in the midst of discovering who they are, some of them fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or Jews, others LGBT activists, extreme left and right wing politically involved people, many with well-to-do parents who have lawyers. Every one of them wants to speak out. Most of them are easily hurt if someone speaks out against them.

The First Amendment does have limits, you can't threaten people with violence, cry "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no danger, distribute child pornography, etc.

What about speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, etc? Most colleges say that's not OK because it makes it really hard for students who fit those categories to feel welcome at school. But how do you define "offends", "threatens", and "insults"? That's tricky, and schools do it in different ways.

It's hard to get exactly right, but it's helpful to think about what it would be like if someone else did it to you. When we talk about people we disagree with, would we consider it hate speech if they said the same kind of thing about us? That kind of symmetry is really important. It has to be fair to both us and people we disagree with. That's uncomfortable, and a big reason that many go to private Christian universities that can play by different rules.

First of all, consider what FIRE says about the state of religious freedom and free speech on college campuses:
https://www.thefire.org/campus-rights/
Religious liberty is the right to follow the faith of your choice—or to follow no faith at all. Religious liberty is a cornerstone of our nation and is the very first freedom guaranteed to Americans by the Bill of Rights. Yet on many college and university campuses, the right to associate on the basis of religious belief and even the right to express those beliefs is under attack. Under the guise of “nondiscrimination” policies, religious groups are often told that they may not choose the membership or leadership of their groups using religious criteria.
I suspect this is about InterVarsity and other groups who require their leaders to follow traditional Christian morality. I donate to InterVarsity and am on their side, I think they are a really good group. As long as they don't use university facilities or university funding, they can pick their leaders however they want, of course.
Other students who merely express religious beliefs in public are condemned and even punished for “hate speech” or “intolerance.”
I would really need details on this. Depends a lot on who was saying what. A public university has to allow people to have very different belief systems, and if you are asking people to condemn those who disagree with us, using crowd shaming, etc., then that crosses the line. Imagine how you would feel if that were directed against you. People do have to feel safe on campus.
Last week, the New York Times ran a piece titled “Campuses Cautiously Train Freshmen against Subtle Insults.” It opens by recounting a question-and-answer session with Clark’s microaggressions czar, chief diversity officer Sheree Marlowe. A student — who begins by saying she’s “really scared to ask this” — asks Miss Marlowe if, when she’s in her car, or with a group of white friends, its “okay” to sing along with music that uses the “N word.”

Miss Marlowe’s answer, says the New York Times, is an “unequivocal ‘no.’”
The whole microaggression thing is poorly defined, and can easily encourage people to make mountains out of molehills. And colleges are full of narcissistic teenagers, emphatic and intelligent. Worse, "microaggression" has been an excuse for internet shaming people you disagree with - including professors.

I think this is a useful article:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/mi ... mhood.html

I prefer what the University of Chicago has to say about its speech policy. For example, in the report of its Committee on Freedom of Expression:
http://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/site ... Report.pdf
Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
Exactly.

Thought experiment: how is that different on a forum like MennoNet? I'm inclined to say that we expect discussion to be held within the bounds of traditional Christianity and with respect for Mennonite and Anabaptist understandings. But I also suspect that a lot of the rest applies here too - we will have different opinions, some of those opinions conflict, but on an open forum, open discussion is a core value.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply