Continuing the trend of the hour, Yale University has been rocked in the past few weeks with students’ demands of retribution over the matter of free speech. Ironically, it escapes many young self-identifying Liberals that freedom of expression is a most basic Liberal ideal, as a frighteningly large fraction of students feel that speech they disagree with should be met with censorship or even punishment. I feel it is vastly important to clarify this issue in the context of recent events at Yale, to elucidate a better understanding of the principal value of protected freedom of expression on college campuses.
As racial issues have escalated across the country, notably at University of Missouri at Columbia, the Yale campus has erupted in controversy regarding minority students and the hardships they face. Noting the racially tense climate, the Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email out to the undergraduate student body the week before Halloween stating that while Yale students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” students were encouraged to “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespect, alienate or ridicule segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.” After some students expressed concerns regarding this email, Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis felt compelled to send a separate email to the Silliman community voicing her view of the issue of cultural appropriation through Halloween costumes, which has become an increasingly touchy subject. In the email, Christakis challenged the notion that some costumes should be off-limits for drawing on cultural elements outside of the culture familiar to the wearer, and argued that colleges should be a place where freedom of expression is protected even if it is “obnoxious […], a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive.”
Christakis received a huge backlash for her email, with more than 700 students signing an open letter criticizing her opinion as “offensive” and “inviting ridicule and violence onto [minority students].” Realizing the seriousness of the open letter, Christakis and her husband, Master of Silliman College Nicholas Christakis, invited all of the signers to lunch in order to further discuss the contention. This ostensibly earnest response was met with scornful rejection by most students. An article in the Yale Herald even demanded that Christakis “stop instigating more debate.” Such a statement is contrary to the spirit of thoughtful discussion that should be encouraged on college campuses, which is likely the reason that the article containing it was later removed from the Yale Herald’s website.
A few days later, over 100 students gathered outside Silliman College to protest Christakis’s email. To the protesters’ surprise, Nicholas Christakis met with them outside in the courtyard, soon becoming surrounded by the students, who accused him of racism and cultural insensitivity. Christakis eventually apologized for “causing [the students] pain” but maintained his determination to “stand behind free speech […] even when it’s offensive,” citing his long history of protecting students’ rights to freedom of expression on college campuses. However, the students did not accept the apology Christakis offered, instead condemning him, one student even yelling “who the fuck hired you?!” and vehemently asserting that Christakis “shouldn’t sleep at night.” This student also notably stated that Christakis’s position as master is “not about creating an intellectual space,” but rather “creating a home.” It is this former statement, as opposed to the latter, that is exemplary of the key flaw in the way of thinking of these protesters: The job of a residence administrator is indeed about creating a “home” away from home; however, it is plainly foolish to create a false dichotomy and also say that it is not about creating an intellectual space. The primary reason for attending college is to live in an intellectual space where your opinions, whatever they may be, are allowed to be challenged. It is only when one’s views are challenged that one can grow as a person, and so all ideas, good or bad, must be allowed to be debated and explored. Colleges are intended to be the bastions of free expression for this precise reason, so when you threaten this vital function of institutions of higher learning, you are undeniably damaging the culture of intellectual development that should be your focus.
Even more absurd is the students’ demand that both Erika and Nicholas Christakis be removed from their jobs as Associate Master and Master of Silliman College, respectively. Allow me to make this clearer: some protesters were offended by the fact that two administrators, whose duty it is to help foster the intellectual development of their residents, opined that freedom of expression (even when offensive) should be protected, as ordained by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and therefore seek to punish them for exercising this right. This is a farce. Not only does this reek of a perversion of the Liberal ideal of freedom of expression, it also goes directly against the freedom of expression policy of Yale itself, which holds that “Yale’s commitment to freedom of expression means that when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated.” These students are of course guaranteed the right to criticize others, but in refusing to tolerate the comments of their residence administrators they are doing themselves and their community a shameful disservice by discrediting the cherished right to freedom of expression that they themselves rely on in order to safely protest the issues that matter to them in the first place.
Another issue is that it is especially crucial that protesters and activists in general act as promoters of personal rights, for they must work to set the example they wish others to follow. So, it becomes a serious problem when activists are the ones calling for administrators to be fired over moderate opinions, let alone extreme opinions. On that note, it is also incredibly inappropriate for activists to forcibly remove members of the press from a public area under the excuse of a promoting a “safe space,” as was witnessed during the Mizzou protests this month. It is deplorable for anyone to stifle the constitutionally protected right of a person, especially on a college campus. However, those who actively support the silencing of others are much more culpable than the individuals who actually impose the silencing, for they are the ones who permit and promote such heinous attitudes as acceptable. If we value freedom of expression at all, then the appropriate response to such behavior is condemnation, which unfortunately is not already the case.
Such a basic tenet as freedom of expression was championed nearly 300 years ago by Voltaire’s proud proclamation that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” and likewise espoused in the 20th century by modern intellectual Noam Chomsky: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” However, a recent Pew report showed that an astounding 40 percent of Millennials support government suppression of speech that is offensive to minorities, despite such a practice being irrefutably unconstitutional. (It is worth noting that speech threatening violence against others does not qualify as protected speech, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.) This demonstrates a growing predilection of young people to censor ideas they deem unpleasant, which poses a danger to the future of free speech; if we do not take these threats to protected rights seriously now, then we are apt to forsake them. It is for this reason that I encourage the students of Stanford, Yale and everywhere else to safeguard freedom of expression for everyone, not just themselves, even when the idea being expressed is offensive.
Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.