“I am inordinately proud these days of the quill, for it has shown itself, historically, to be the hypodermic that inoculates men and keeps the germ of freedom always in circulation.” – E.B. White
The fight to preserve, protect and promote freedom of expression cuts across the political spectrum— it is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is a human one.
In July of 2014, the University of Chicago appointed a Committee on Freedom of Expression, in light of national events that were fraying “institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” The committee report produced a free speech policy statement that should serve as a guiding light for college campuses across the country, if not the world.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has launched a national effort urging colleges and universities to adopt the statement or incorporate it into one of their own.
Cornell, consistent with the university mission, should join other universities in adopting the Chicago Statement; we have the opportunity to play a leading role in this fight.
Ensuring free expression is consistent with Cornell’s very purpose: two of the University’s core values are to “Support free and open intellectual inquiry and expression,” and to “Embrace difference and diversity.” Our conception of the latter should include the diversity of thought, which is consistently overlooked, dismissed, and ignored.
Adopting this statement codifies and reaffirms that censoring lawful speech, shouting down someone’s opinion on the basis of their ‘privilege,’ or physically blocking a guest lecturer from speaking due to political disagreements, are all at odds with the mission and vision of Cornell University.
After all, despite what students at supposedly exalted institutions of higher learning might think, enlightened indignation should not be the highly-sought end of a world class education.
A particularly compelling section of the Chicago Statement reads:
“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.”
This is critically important to universities, the pursuit of knowledge, and society as a whole. The fundamental premise of and regard for free speech and associated principles like civility and respect has been precipitously declining on college campuses over the course of the last decade.
As Geoffrey Stone—who chaired the Chicago Committee—writes in The Washington Post, a Louisiana State Professor was fired for the use of profanity, a Northwestern University professor resigned over the university’s censorship of a faculty-edited journal, and Chicago State University enacted a cyberbullying policy just to shut down a student blog critical of top university leaders.
And as President Obama stated in a town hall,
“I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. And, you know, I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”
I do not write to defend hate speech, libel, or any other perversion of the freedom of expression. Rather, I write with great affinity for vigorous debate, the battle of ideas, and respectful tolerance for competing viewpoints.
As E.B. White wrote, “the quill… has shown itself, historically, to be the hypodermic that… keeps the germ of freedom always in circulation.” That is a worthwhile end— for universities and governments alike.
