Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Students express concerns about free speech in USG forum

The Undergraduate Student Government sponsored an open forum about freedom of expression on campus in Frist Campus Center on Sunday.

The panelists included Dean of the FacultyDeborah Prentice, mathematics professorSergiu Klainerman and University general counsel Ramona Romero. USG vice president Aleksandra Czulak ’17 facilitated the discussion with participation from both panelists and audience members.

ADVERTISEMENT

Klainerman said he had first submitted a petition signed by 60 colleagues on academic freedom in March because he and like-minded faculty members wanted faculty to take the lead in preserving freedom of expression. The faculty voted on adopting the statement at the April 6 faculty meeting.

Freedom, justice, equality and safetyare in a state of permanent conflict, according to Klainerman.

“A successful society has to somehow meetthese four basic human needs,” Klainerman said.“Our main motivation was in reaction to events occurring at college campuses, rather than events occurring on Princeton University’s campus.”

Klainerman said that while good intentions can make censorship seemingly nonthreatening, an environment in which students hear nothing but uncontroversial viewpoints will not benefit students.

Klainerman noted that the lead for academic freedom comes from faculty, not administration. He explained that there exists a serious conflict between defending freedom of speech and addressing the needs and concerns of the nation’s lawmakers.

Approximately 30-40 students attended the forum, and they raised a number of concerns, including the fact thatsensitivity training might be necessary to keep in professors’ minds that certain statements are offensive to students.Students pushed for a clearer definition of a “standard for civility” and questioned the limits of standards of speech for faculty members.

ADVERTISEMENT

The panel responded by citing faculty’s rights to express their opinions without being considered obscene and said that University guidelines in “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” should be made parallel to those laid out by the First Amendment.

“I want to make clear that all of the faculty members that signed the statement didn’t necessarily sign the statement for the same reason that Professor Klainerman articulate,” said Prentice. “I can imagine that the 60 people who signed this came to it for 60 different reasons.”

Ethan Marcus ’18 said he thinks a lot needs to be done to continue the conversation about freedom of speech.

“There’s a lot more the faculty needs to do to work with students so that both sides can convey information and present viewpoints in a way that doesn’t violate students’ personal integrity and cultural beliefs and safety,”Marcus said.

Subscribe
Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The panel noted that students should always bring up and discuss concerns of harassment or abuse.

Students raised concerns about the University taking preventative measures against hate speech, and the panel responded that freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech.

“This university, like any university, is about freedom of speech and diversity,” Romero said. “We don’t all agree on issues; we disagree and learn from one another.”

Students asked if administrators would play a role in preserving freedom of speech on campus.

“I think the administration has an important role to play in creating conditions to prevent hate speech to begin with,” Prentice said. “That’s a role for the administration.”

When students questioned whether the University was going far enough to try to prevent bigotry on campus, Klainerman said that he felt that marginal hate speech should be ignored.

“Not always, but there are times when we should just ignore it and marginalize it,” he said. “Sometimes it works better. Not always, but sometimes it works better.”

Students pushed back against this idea by pointing out that marginalizing hateful speech can uphold the status quo that allows for racism and prejudice.

The distinctions between private and public institutions upholding unlimited freedom of speech rules were also brought up.

“The First Amendment is nuanced,” Romero said. “There’s a value issue for institutions of higher learning adhering to freedom of expression. I’d hope that, at this institution, speech that targets individuals would be challenged and that every voice would be heard.”

Klainerman added that there are times when speech is unacceptable and positions have to be taken.

Students said that recent events on campus, which they called racist and offensive, are not being adequately addressed. Cultural competency courses are not being held, which means that the University is not positioned well to take a proactive role to guard against individuals demeaning other individuals at the University, they said.

“In terms of cultural competency training, I agree, it would be very good for this campus. Where I don’t agree would be that it’s worth making it mandatory,” Prentice said, noting that research shows that mandatory training does not really enlighten anybody. “I think creating a community in which more people want to learn this and the values of understanding other people and understanding their experiences are more prominent, I think that’s what we need to do.”

Both administrators and students said they appreciated the open forum.

“It’s an opportunity for an open exchange of views,” Prentice said. “There are clearly questions students have wanted to ask that this [forum] provided them with an opportunity to ask.”