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

In defense of the administration’s speech policies

I had thought that the debate about free speech on campus had settled after the protests concluded last fall, but I was proven wrong by the flyer incident in late March. A hacker remotely sent anti-Semitic flyers to campus printers. I believe that the University can limit particularly threatening hate speech, while still maintaining the individual right to freedom of speech.

ADVERTISEMENT
argued

Adding its voice to the discourse, the Black Justice League released a statement, alleging “hypocrisy” and “inconsistency” on behalf of the University in denouncing anti-Semitic actions while supposedly permitting similar types of speech against the Black Justice League during the Nassau Hall sit-in.

I respectfully disagree with both opinions. For example, when a bomb threat was called in against the Black Justice League members, the University took swift and decisive action with the Princeton Police Department to protect the protestors and investigate whether the threat was credible, vowing to punish all students responsible. There is no hypocrisy on the part of the University in the way it dealt with the hacking incident and how it dealt with the threats at the BJL protest.

The Editorial Board argued that section 1.3.3 of Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities — whichrestricts speech “that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment” — is too broad and can be enforced arbitrarily. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education concurs and has given the University a “red light” rating for its theoretical infringements on free speech.

The flyers did not present a “clear and present danger,” which would have made them illegal. But there was a clear consensus among the campus community that these flyers were reprehensible. Indeed, the flyers called people to join in a “struggle for global white supremacy.” Theconsensus of outrage shows that the community had already engaged with, and rejected, this message, something that the Editorial Board believes needed to happen before the flyers could be suppressed. Thus, it was the will of the campus community to eliminate those flyers.

FIRE and the Editorial Board have a point in saying that the University could do a better job of clearly delineating what type of speech can be censored. I applaud the University, however, in the way that it has enforced the current provisions. Despite the hyperbolic language used by FIRE — which claims that the University “clearly and substantially limits freedom of speech” — Princeton is not on a path toward police-state levels of speech suppression. Nor has it treated this incident differently from the threat that the BJL protestors faced. Instead, the University has done a fine job of preserving the right to free expression, while maintaining the safe environment for learning that a campus requires.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nicholas Wu is a sophomore from Grosse Pointe Shores, Mich. He can be reached at nmwu@princeton.edu.

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