Some so-called free speech advocates seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths. Take for example the Princeton Open Campus Coalition’s open letter to first years. The POCC was founded, it’s important to recall, in response to the Black Justice League’s peaceful sit-in last year. In this letter they sharply criticize the “shutdown culture” of student protests and list examples of speaker events on campuses across the country that were canceled in response to such demonstrations.
The POCC warns that these “greedy” student protesters are creating “sterilized and repressive environments.” As the POCC notes, “it is only when we are exposed to new ideas, when our dearly-held beliefs are challenged, that we are able to determine right from wrong — to seek any semblance of truth.” And yet, the POCC concludes that we ought to stifle the protesters. Wait. Seriously? Seems sort of hypocritical given that protests are one way of exposing us to new ideas, the very principle the group purports to support.
Let’s look carefully at the examples of the harmful effects of the campus protests that the POCC provided. In the first, Virginia Tech University leadership disinvited (and then reinvited) Jason Riley, a conservative journalist, “for fear of protests” against the speaker’s controversial book. The next anecdote discusses how Condoleezza Rice decided herself to back out of speaking at Rutgers University after student and faculty protests. A similar situation arose at Brown with Janet Mock, when the speaker chose to back out of speaking at Brown in response to protests. A further example given was DePaul University’s decision to ban Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator, from speaking on campus as the university determined it could not (or more plausibly, would not) guarantee the speaker’s safety in response to a protest.
In only one of the given examples was a speaker prevented from speaking directly as a result of protesters. Evidently, at the University of Pennsylvania, “John Brennan, director of the CIA, was shouted down… by students protesting the American drone program” to the point where he couldn’t respond to their concerns.
I agree that what happened at UPenn closed off academic discussion about different viewpoints by actually preventing a speaker from responding to criticisms and continuing his presentation. However, the other examples are instances where university officials are actually directly accountable for disinviting the speakers or the speakers are at fault for deciding on their own not to come to the campuses. The responsibility does not rest with the protesters in those cases for choosing to also voice their opinions. Student protests embody the concept of free speech and the academic sharing of ideas. It is oxymoronic to argue that we must condemn the student protests to allow controversial speakers to come on campus. Both can and ought to co-exist.
Let’s be clear. Students peacefully protesting and voicing an alternative opinion as to speakers and issues does not actually prevent said speakers from coming, nor does it prevent other students from organizing a counter protest in response should they choose to do so. (I was part of a counter protest when the Westboro Baptist Church protested a production of “The Laramie Project” at my high school, and I would say both groups were able to convey their positions to the other side and third party observers quite effectively.) It was the speakers themselves who decided they did not want to engage with students and protesters, or university officials who decided that they didn’t want to deal with having opposing sides peacefully voicing their differing opinions about the speaker.
Just a few weeks ago, on Sept. 23, the students and administrators at Florida State University demonstrated that protesters and controversial speakers could co-exist and that a meaningful dialogue could ensue. Milos Yiannopoulos, tech editor of the ultra-conservative Breitbart News, spoke on campus at the invitation of the FSU College Republicans and within the same hour there was a solidarity gathering of the Black Lives Matter group for Terence Crutcher, the African-American man shot by a police officer in Tulsa.
Yiannopoulos was met with dozens of student protesters outside of where he was speaking, condemning him as a racist who didn’t warrant free speech rights. They were confronted by his supporters who counter protested nearby. Meanwhile, students at the rally for Crutcher came face-to-face with students headed to the Yiannopoulos event. All sides were able to voice their opinion and then proceeded to engage in a civil exchange of opinions with one another.
We have witnessed such productive encounters at Princeton in the recent past. Students used posters to protest speakers arguing against gay marriage, and they waved placards when they heard ideas they disagreed with during a panel on affirmative action. These protests occurred before and during said events, but the University and the speakers all decided to proceed and engage and further a dialogue.
Critics of protesters like to claim that this mode of speech “shuts down” discussion. However, choosing to listen to the other side and furthering a collective dialogue is a personal choice. I can honestly say that I’ve had conversations with people who supported both sides of the protests at Princeton — regardless of what means of speech they used to convey their thoughts. We can always choose to listen. Or we cannot. That is on us, irrespective of the method of communication.
The freedom of speech argument inherently must protect both invited speakers and student protesters, regardless of politics or means of communication. I disagree with some of the speakers the open letter mentioned, but I think they can be allowed to speak at a university that values the open discussion of ideas. I would just stand proudly with protesters in response and engage in discussion with those who disagree on why I believe what I do.
If you criticize students for peacefully protesting speakers with whom they differ, that’s an assertion in and of itself. But, don’t do it under the false guise of protecting the free, open, academic exchange of ideas. This is just another manifestation of “the inequality of ideas” where “certain ideas are permitted while others are discouraged or silenced.” If you are really just restricting one side’s method of free speech over another’s because of chosen means of expression, please just call yourselves what you are: anti-protest.
Marni Morse is a politics major from Washington, DC. She can be reached at mlmorse@princeton.edu.Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
