I support free speech, but

“I support free speech. It is obvious to me that calling for the genocide of any group of people is hate speech.” Chris Tang

?

I agree that “calling for genocide of any group is hate speech.” The universities response depends on context, as these presidents so unartfully said. Chris is a valued colleague and he deserves a fuller explanation of where we do disagree.

?

Of course, context matters. “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is the very definition of the role of context in a prohibition. Yell “Fire” in a soundproof room by yourself, is more an exercise in futility. The same is true for the hate-filled rhetoric ones hears today. “At the other end of the spectrum are acts ?hate crimes against hashtag#AAPI during the hashtag#covidpandemic.” And on a ladder that leads to the world crises we face, somewhere along that continuum is an unlikely balance where reasoned debate might occur. A balanced academic or public debate on issues that would be taboo when shouted to an angry mob, is unlikely, but enfranchised by the speech codes for the many universities I know. It doesn’t demand false equivalences. Let’s entertain it as a hypothetical construct at this point.

?

I spelled out my position in more detail in a 2019 post: An Imperfect Defense of an Imperfect University. In brief, the original #FreeSpeechMovement was more about civic engagement as campuses were called on to feed the students gone south for the Mississippi Summer Project in 1964. Free speech issues weren’t at stake until the Filthy Speech Movement followed-on in 1965, when some students, faculty, and staff read aloud near Ludwig’s Fountain various passages of literature where the common word to all was “Fuck.”

?

I wrote that imperfect defense when I was on the on the academic advisory board for the?UC Nat’l Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement?(UCNCFSCE). My primary agenda was on the civic-engagement side. I hadn’t paid much attention to free speech?circa?Berkeley 2017, invoking a willing suspension of disbelief for anything beyond page 1. I was busy building partnerships for action research in the UC system and finishing a book about managing coalitions of entrepreneurial organizations.[2]?[link] The work of some of my colleagues on the advisory board lured me into confronting the issues of the last decade, rather than just the five-decade old mandates. Prof. Amy Binder’s work was particularly useful.[3][link]

?

?“This provocative style of right-wing activism is designed to poke fun at liberals, get them angry, protest their events and, when chaos ensues, attract media attention.”[6]?The traditional choice-process model goes from awareness to interest, to comparison/evaluation of alternatives, choice, and feedback. Right-wing activists see their role as increasing the first-stage awareness. The action-research model lays out a path throughout the process and beyond. If you could just move the discussions by both sides to the comparison/evaluation of alternative stage, the collective critical-thinking skills could start to gnaw away at individual differences. Behavioral studies have undercut the received view that critical debate between ideological opponents increases polarization. The increased polarization is between high critical thinkers on one side and intuitive or lazy deciders on the other.[7]?[link]There is some potential for academic debate if the right ever turned from media-grabbing monologues to dialogues. The behavioral underpinnings of pro-social activities are a promising area of study.[8][link]. Helena’s “America in One Room” is a stellar example.

?

Now there is broadening divide on campus that makes all decisions harder. It’s hard to imagine a forum with more light than heat. I’m not sure it’s possible. Another point where I'm glad I'm emeritus professor.

?

It is the university’s retained authorizes to regulate the time, place, and manner of activities that would include academic debate and the rest of what is happening on campus. In return the university retains the responsibility to keep the whole community safe.

?

So the honest answer should have been “We have to allow for the remote possibility of a civil academic debate might occur. And we haven’t figured out good ways to do that yet. Time, place, and manner are sometimes hard to balance. So yes, it depends on context.”

?

I’m currently writing a piece on why “when rational men of good will sit down at a table to resolve their difference, they can’t.”

hashtag#freespeech hashtag#hatespeech hashtag#universities hashtag#hate hashtag#love hashtag#asians hashtag#jews hashtag#aapihashtag#stophate

?