NYU once again received an ‘F’ grade on an annual list evaluating free speech policies across U.S. universities. The ranking, facilitated by watchdog organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, was based on university policies and reports from hundreds of students who claimed they felt uncomfortable expressing ideas or political beliefs. This is a far cry from the high standards for expression set at over 100 colleges and universities — all of which surpassed NYU in recent rankings — principles originated by the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression.
In a statement drafted in 2014, the committee wrote a treatise outlining an “overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.” The statement came in the wake of heightened tensions across college campuses nationwide, when groups tried to ban controversial commencement ceremony speakers. The principles in the statement weren’t intended to emotionally protect the students who’d have to listen to these ceremonies, but to protect their right to hear opinions they might disagree with for the sake of free debate. NYU’s climate of free speech uncertainty in recent years, in addition to repeatedly failed FIRE assessments, calls into question why the university has yet to implement these same principles on its own campuses.
One of the key demands of the Chicago Principles is that community members should not obstruct the exercise of free speech, even when it comes to subjects some might consider offensive or immoral. The treatise states that, although the university “greatly values civility” and expects its community members to maintain “a climate of mutual respect,” courtesy concerns “can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be.” This stipulation represents a key stopgap against those at NYU who would use lofty standards of ostensibly civil debate in order to stop controversial viewpoints.
Some worry that a university’s failure to quiet offensive speakers may heighten tensions, exclusion and frustration on campus. But those who feel this way are missing the point of the Chicago Principles: universities should not bottleneck which perspectives reach students for the purpose of shielding them from discomfort. To find where you lie on a subject, you need to engage with it in good faith and attempt to see all angles. Under the Chicago Principles, students are encouraged to challenge statements and confront their own biases, enabling a truly productive dialogue. Without this possibility for debate, all universities are really doing is creating unimpeded pedestals for approved speakers whose viewpoints they want to push, rather than creating space for dialogue.
As political polarization has crept into everyday life, many take refuge in echo chambers that reaffirm their prejudices instead of engaging in productive questioning of their views. This is exacerbated by social media algorithms, automatically curating content for their users to either bathe in endless ideological validation or be baited into engaging with provocative political content. Universities have historically been a place for debate and free speech to thrive — think of nationwide student protests during the Vietnam War — this practice is becoming increasingly vital as opportunities for freedom of speech are closing off everywhere else. Environments that promote fruitful conversations give people the opportunity to strengthen their values as they come into conflict with others. Regardless of whether you can defend your values and beliefs well, a productive debate can expand your worldview while reinforcing what you believe in.
The line is, of course, drawn at statements that provoke violence or ostracize students from attending or participating in class. Institutions that have already adopted free speech principles still indicate that speech can be regulated if it interferes with the necessary functioning of the university. But there’s an important caveat here that needs to be remembered: whoever decides what constitutes violent, offensive language holds the keys to shutting down any speech they can justify their discomfort with. This is why it’s critical that universities be genuinely, wholeheartedly committed to true freedom of expression and good-faith political disagreement, rather than committed to the appearance of it.
As an example of necessitated speech restriction, NYU was right to cancel a College Republicans panel in April after a speaker uploaded posters with vile racist caricatures to promote the event. He then requested attendees to bring firearms and act as ad hoc private security for the event, practically guaranteeing a violent political confrontation. This incident represented both a violation of good faith political debate as well as a tangible threat to the security of NYU’s students, and the university did good in proactively putting a stop to it.
However, students should not have to dance around emotionally-charged topics. Despite their ubiquitous prevalence on campus and in social discourse, the Israel-Palestine debate has remained a fringe topic at NYU because of the administrative pressure bearing down on pro-Palestine protesters. It’s a very complex issue, but if you disagree with these people, you must engage with them and prove them wrong, not use official channels to shut down their speech and hope it goes away. Ultimately, the students and community should rule on this judgement, not the university.
Post-graduation, students are thrust into a world where they must accept unsolicited and discrepant opinions without an institution’s careful curation of what can and can’t be said. Without the ability to properly parse these often-persuasive arguments, students will turn into eternally impressionable adults, incapable of separating themselves from their own beliefs or the manipulations of others. When universities commit to an open environment of discourse instead, in the words of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, they “guarantee[s] all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”
The increasing generalization of NYU students as a homogenous body is a result of growing pressure for students to self-censor. But we can’t expect the over 60,000 enrolled students from 133 countries and every U.S. state to converge on their values. Nor should the university want that. NYU has always prided itself on its diverse student body, emphasizing scholarship and innovation as hallmarks of the institution. If the university wants to follow through on this promise, it should adopt the sentiments lauded in the Chicago Principles and seek to implement them into campus life.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Serin Lee at [email protected].
