Freedom of speech has become an increasingly contested right on college campuses, and for good reason. Unrestrained freedom of speech can be a potent tool for education, enlightenment, social progress, and giving otherwise silenced or disenfranchised voices a way to be heard. Unchained speech, however, is just as easily a weapon in the hands of bigots, oppressors, racists, and other assorted gems of society.
Across the country, and here at home, colleges have revised their policies regarding expression in such a way to try and regulate speech so that campuses can benefit from all the pros without any of the cons. Colorado College’s policy specifically is that, “Uncensored speech – which does not include a right to harass, injure, or silence others – is essential in an academic community and will be vigorously defended” which sounds peachy on a first reading.
The word that is concerning in this sentence is “injure” as its not really defined in the policy what it means to injure someone with speech. Sticks and stones may break bones, but it’s accepted in this era that words can cause potent emotional trauma or damage in the right context, but if “injure” isn’t defined that’s a damn slippery slope. The danger here is in the interpretation of what sort of speech has the power to “injure” and how quickly that interpretation could get out of hand.
Generally, there is a lot of momentum gathering behind a countrywide movement that’s seeking to purge campuses everywhere of speech or ideas that could be perceived as uncomfortable or offensive. Quite frankly, it’s starting to get real ridiculous a lot quicker than everyone hoped it would. A quick Google search could find you some examples that range from eyebrow raising to stomach churning but I have a few favorites.
All the way back in 2008, Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis decided that a white student who was reading “Notre Dame vs. the Klan,” a book about a KKK march and a student movement to combat bigotry, was guilty of racial harassment for possessing said book. On campus, a portion of our own student body moved to get the movie “Stonewall” silenced and not shown on campus because of its many shortcomings in adequately portraying the realities of the events it depicted. While those opposed had very good reasons to criticize the movie this is a perfect example of an educational opportunity almost being discarded because we would rather silence speech than contest and debate the quality of its ideas.
More disturbingly, last fall, Omar Mahmood published a satirical piece in a University of Michigan student publication that poked fun at the idea of microaggressions. His piece was interpreted as offensive and as a result his dorm room door was vandalized with pleasant messages such as “Everyone hates you, you violent prick.” This instance is indicative of how college students are starting to take the regulation of speech into their own hands and producing disgusting results. It would seem that many agree that satire doesn’t have much of a place in this new era of political correctness and regulated speech and that’s a shame. Where would we be if the discourse of minds such as Mark Twain, Voltaire, Kurt Vonnegut, Anna Tambour, or other satirists never made it into the public sphere of ideas because they were silenced for being offensive?
The idea that speech can injure and maim is valid, but if someone being hurt is enough to silence speech that is an extremely concerning development. We might very well end up a society with very thin skins and very narrow minds if the momentum behind this continues to build. At the end of the day, being offended is subjective, and allowing speech to be curtailed on a subjective basis is way too close to picking and choosing to hear the ideas you like and don’t like.
Bigotry, harassment, and verbal or written abuse have no place on a college campus, but these things should be combated with speech that educates, enlightens, and seeks to find solutions and common ground with your fellow members of the human race.
It is facile to chain free speech in the name of protecting student’s feelings as what is offensive is a rapidly expanding concept. Soon we might find that much of what we once considered critical to the education of a capable mind locked behind the gates of political correctness. A liberal arts education is unique in that it places an emphasis on students becoming adept in multiple disciplines and learning how to think critically from multiple perspectives and views and once alternate perspectives begin to be labeled offensive we will lose much of the intellectual strength that comes from having ideas tested in a multitude of perspectives. If we begin banning speech that “injures,” it will stifle debates tremendously, as all one has to do is claim they’re so offended that they are injured and victimized, and nobody could contest that point without being slammed for victim blaming.
Bigotry on campus, and in general, can be defeated with open discourse and appealing to the humanity and empathy of your classmates. While the goals and intent of restricting speech on campus are laudable, they are a slippery slope that could easily lead us to a place where we silence those we disagree with instead of engaging them in educational discourse.
Wes Miller
Latest posts by Wes Miller (see all)
- When Masturbation Becomes the Master – May 2, 2016
- Extreme Conservatism Hinders Progressive Policy – Apr 25, 2016
- Illusions of Progress: How Diversity Policies Fail – Apr 2, 2016