It then says that in the 1960s, anything goes was the approach. Now, however, she says, things are changing demographically. (But it is not clear how that figures into it.)
She says you shouldn't shout down speakers or prevent them from speaking. But she says she prefers a campus which is "loud" (which seems to endorse aggressive heckling).
It's fine to say things are not absolute. But the op ed seems to be a very lengthy way of saying that and seems to wander from one view to the next. We'll be fair and balanced, however, and let you read it for yourself:
----
It’s time to free
speech on campus again
By
Janet Napolitano, October 2, 2016, Boston Globe
When
I was growing up, a favored comeback to perceived censorship was: “It’s a free
country!” Whether this was spouted at a parent, a sibling, or an erstwhile
friend, what it meant was people could speak their minds, that such freedom of
speech was not only encouraged but guaranteed in the United States of America,
so long as you didn’t yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Years
later, the sanctity of free speech in our country is hardly guaranteed — at
least not on our college campuses, where freedom of expression and the free
flow of ideas should incubate discovery and learning. This is an irony that
gives me pause even as I write this.
As
president of the University of California system, I write to show how far we
have moved from freedom of speech on campuses to freedom from speech. If it
hurts, if it’s controversial, if it articulates an extreme point of view, then
speech has become the new bête noire of the academy. Speakers are disinvited,
faculty are vilified, and administrators like me are constantly asked to
intervene.
In
the 1960s, as exemplified by the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, students on
campuses demanded and received the ability to protest the Vietnam War. This was
free speech, loud and angry and in your face. Today many of the loudest voices
condemning speech and demanding protection are students on those same campuses.
Listening to offensive, or merely opposing, views is subject to frequent
criticism. What has happened, and what are we to do about it?
To
thoughtfully answer these questions requires an examination of the history of
free speech at our universities, the interplay with other social movements, and
the values we profess to hold so dear. I begin, however, by agreeing with the
sentiment expressed by Clark Kerr, the George Washington of the University of
California:
“The
University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in
making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views
before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on those
views. Only in this way can it best serve American democracy.”
Well
said, President Kerr. But what does this ideal mean in today’s environment?
First, a look back. The oldest versions of the university were institutions of
indoctrination, whether by the church or by the state. Not until the potent
combination of the Enlightenment with the revolution in natural science inquiry
did the value of free speech in democratic societies surface.
Wrote
Thomas Jefferson in 1820, a year after founding the University of Virginia,
“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind.
For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
But
freedom of speech has had a bumpy ride at American universities, echoing our
country’s uneven interpretation of the First Amendment. In 1900, for example,
Jane Stanford, the benefactor of Stanford University, forced the firing of a
faculty member in large part because he supported labor unions. Not until the
Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the mid-60s was the principle established that
the only limits on free speech should be those defined in the Constitution, at
least as far as our nation’s public universities were concerned. Has this
concept now been turned on its head?
Not
necessarily. “The times,” to quote Bob Dylan, “are a-changin’.” And so are our
students — not to mention the challenges many have overcome just to gain
admittance to a university. The University of California is the largest and
best public research university in the country. In the 1960s, when the Free
Speech Movement began, our student body was 55 percent male and overwhelmingly
white. Today, 53 percent of UC students are women, 42 percent are the first in
their families to attend college, and nearly 40 percent of this year’s entering
class identified themselves as either black, Latino/Latina, or a member of
another historically underrepresented ethnic or racial group. Moreover, sexual
identity was hardly on the radar in the 1960s. Today, students self-identify in
myriad ways.
Students,
therefore, come from a much broader range of backgrounds, and they often
benefit from gathering with others of similar backgrounds to share experiences
and support one another. At UC we have many different types of student centers
and student activities; some of our newest are for undocumented students. You
can call these “safe spaces,” but I call them a good idea.
The
more difficult issues arise when students seek to shout down speakers or
attempt to prevent them from appearing at all. If one believes in the value of
free speech and its place in the modern university, these types of actions are
antithetical. I personally disagree with many of the sentiments expressed in
the public spaces on our campuses. But the way to deal with extreme, unfounded
speech is not with less speech — it is with more speech, informed by facts and
persuasive argument. Educating students from an informed “more speech” approach
as opposed to silencing an objectionable speaker should be one of academia’s
key roles. After all, these students will graduate into a country where
objectionable speech is the current coin of the realm.
This
does not mean that all speech is permissible. That which is designed to
personally intimidate or harass falls outside First Amendment protections, as
outlined by the Supreme Court. And remember that example of yelling “Fire!” in
a crowded theater. These exceptions, however, should be narrowly construed
because history teaches us that even narrowly drawn exceptions to free speech
inevitably lead to broader limitations. Just read the Supreme Court’s opinions
in the early 20th century, and you’ll know what I mean.
What
about speech in the classroom? Do, or should, different standards apply? What
about those so-called trigger warnings that have been so vilified by some in
the (First Amendment-protected) press?
Here
the academy must rely on its faculty. Given the broad range of life experiences
our students bring to the university, our faculty have a professional
responsibility to create an inclusive learning environment, as persuasively
argued by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman in an upcoming book about free
speech on college campuses. If a professor tells students that a piece they are
about to study explores the difficult topic of race, for example, that could be
construed as a trigger warning. It also helps students appreciate what they are
reading so as to bring their perspectives into even richer classroom
discussion.
The
key is to ensure that the faculty itself is enforcing professional standards
guided by peer assessments of the quality of scholarship or teaching.
Especially in the humanities and the social sciences, the goal is to foster
constructive engagement and to prepare students to listen, discuss, argue, and
learn about topics that may be difficult for them personally.
I
think of this kind of education as preparing students to be resilient, even in
the face of speech that they feel undervalues them or diminishes their own
experiences.
I
object to the word “coddling.” I’m not especially fond of the letter recently
sent by the dean of students at the University of Chicago that seemed to
support free speech Darwinism. As stated earlier, even free speech has its
limits: time, place, and manner restrictions, for instance. Chalking an anti-immigrant
pro-Trump slogan on a sidewalk is one thing; spray painting it on a building is
another.
The
goal of our university education today should be to prepare students who are
thoughtful, well-informed, and resilient. The world needs more critical,
creative thinkers, and American higher education does a better job of producing
them than any other higher education system in the world. We seek to make the
world a better place for the next generation, and teaching the values and
responsibilities of free speech is inextricably linked with this goal.
I
prefer a campus that is loud to one that is quiet. I prefer a classroom where
students feel included and are encouraged to bring different perspectives to
the fore. I want a faculty that enforces its own professional standards among
its peers. These are the three lode stars that should guide our efforts. These
are the values I will embrace when particular episodes are brought before me.
Consider this my own trigger warning. Just sayin’.
----
Just sayin'. But what is it that is being said? (Won't work in iPhone.)
No comments:
Post a Comment