If Free Speech Can't Thrive on Campuses, Where Can It Thrive?

The details of a recent event at Middlebury College in Vermont should have sent shivers up and down the spine of those of us who are or have been in the academy. It was bad enough that a speaker was shouted down with such vigor that he had to be moved to a secret location to be interviewed by a faculty member. That happens. What was way worse was the violence, and the professor ended up being taken to the hospital after her hair was pulled and her neck twisted.

I can appreciate that the speaker's views (Charles Murray) were antithetic to many students, faculty and staff. Indeed, there are many speakers these days who can rub us the wrong way with their lies and exaggerations and bravado and narcissism. Just think about our President and Attorney General for starters if you want some examples, although to be sure there are those who do not see or do not mind the views and approaches of the latter two individuals.

Here's what is unacceptable in any setting: violence. Protesting, holding signs, even shouting out are all forms of protected speech. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of our nation is that we can speak up and out -- everyone can regardless of their age and stage and race and gender and ethnicity. And, we can do so (usually) without risk of arrest or sanctions or even discipline (say on a campus).

But, there is no place for violence -- civil disobedience does have a place in limited settings but a speaker on a campus with whom one disagrees is not one of them. Those of us who remember Kent State and the Chicago Convention know all too well that violence does not breed success. Violence tends to breed more violence and a sense of distrust and disquiet. And, it also incites a mob mentality.

If there ever were a place where speakers should be able to express contrarian, even distasteful and wrong-headed views, it is a campus. Indeed, some courses have readings and assignments that are designed to showcase how narrow minded and insular thinking have been prevalent in the past and how readily one can get on a pathway to bad reasoning and illogic. And, on a campus, there is a ready forum for discussion and debate and reason and passion and argument and disagreement. Many fora actually -- classrooms, clubs, gathering places, residential halls, the President's Office, faculty offices and presentations. The academy -- which grants tenure at least historically to faculty so they can speak their minds without fear of firing -- is a place that can role model quality discourse and disagreement.

How we respond -- on and off campus -- with those with whom we disagree effectively but non-violently is not an easy question to answer. We can certainly eliminate physical harm as an approach. Sometimes, rationale and reasoned speech doesn't work either. Neither does detailed analysis and data. Sometimes, passion and belief systems take control. True enough. Classrooms can be tense and professors may not all be equally adept at handling "hot" issues.

Many moons ago, albeit in a different context, Judy Collins was singing at Dartmouth College and students in the first row had their feet up on the stage, as they leaned back in their chairs to get comfortable and to have a better angle by which to see. Many were wearing boots; it was winter in Hanover. At a certain point early in the concert, Collins stopped playing and turned to the students and said and I quote I think almost verbatim (because it has stayed with me): "Would you put your feet on your dining room table at home? This is my dining room table. This is where I make my music and earn my living. Take your feet off my GD table if you want me to continue."

A hush fell over the concert hall. You could sense that the students in the front row were debating whether or not to remove their feet. After all, they did not have to listen and obey. What was Collins asking for really? Some respect. Yes, nothing prevents students from putting their feet on the stage. Freedom of assembly allows that. There are no rules invoked. --- well, there is one rule: the rule that we treat other humans with decency and civility -- even if that inconveniences us.

So, what are we to do on our campuses? Well, as did the President of Middlebury, we can articulate the values we hold dear and how free speech is one such value and there must be room for different voices within the academic community. But, we can do more. We can appreciate the value of respect and decency and temperance and tolerance, even in the face of distasteful views. We do not need to like the views or accept the views of others. We can shout up and out. But, we do need to recognize that another person deserves some dignity as a person, a fellow human -- even if they hail from a foreign nation with discriminatory practices or are our next door neighbor or a professor who has a deep misunderstanding of intelligence and genetics and equality.

Once we give up our recognition of the "value" of others and their personhood, we become more savage ourselves. We become intolerant. We become agitators. We become disrespectful and disdainful and we lose our power to make change. You don't make change easily by dissing others. It doesn't work. They diss back.

On our campuses, we can agree to disagree. We can choose not to attend events. We can protest. We can dissent. We can voice our opinions. But, within the academy, there must be room to hear others and to find powerful, compelling and forceful counterarguments. We can shout out these counterarguments; we can walk out with our feet and walk into places where we can take steps to make change. But, violence, total disrespect and distain are unlikely to promote compromise, consensus and compassion.

Leaders can help with all this, encouraging peaceful protests and marches, encouraging debates (even very spirited ones). But, how we treat others? That is not something on which we can or should budge and which is hard to teach: we need to treat other humans -- all humans regardless of how awful they are or the crimes (intellectual or legal) they have committed. Remember, we do not allow cruel and unusual punishment even in jails and we do not (for the most part) sanction torture even at wartime. We are, after all, a civilized nation both in aspiration and I hope reality. That last sentence is worth repeating.

I recently completed a book with Debbi Wraga that collected the positive signs of the post-inaugural march on Jan. 21, 2017. (Teach Our Children Well, Shires Press www.northshire.com or Amazon.) They message powerfully. And a portion of the net profits will go to civil rights causes and organizations. And, it is a book that can be seen and read and seen and read again and again and its message is clear: Teach Our Children Well. They deserve a better world for their own sake and for the sake of their children. March for peace. March for free speech. March for values you hold dear. But stepping on others -- literally and figuratively, won't get us to a better place or to being a better nation. Perhaps, in addition to Teaching our Children Well, we could use these two phrases: Treat Our Children Well and Treat Others Well.

When we demean others, we demean ourselves and our own humanity.

Campuses -- here's a chance to role model. Take up the cudgel with pride and with purpose. Isn't that a key aspect of being educated?

Note: To MW, for our many and continuing enriching conversations about how to manage swamps -- in DC and in life more generally -- with grace and aplomb.