Liberals

Encouragingly, Both Sides in Debate on Campus Speech End Up Defending Campus Speech

At GW last night, nobody was willing to argue that students should be silenced.

|

Greg and Kirsten arguing "for" at the Intelligence Squared debate on campus speech
Intelligence Squared

Anyone feeling disheartened by the many ways our First Amendment freedoms are under attack may find solace in the outcome of an event last night hosted by Intelligence Squared at George Washington University. Two teams of two debated whether liberals are stifling intellectual diversity on college campuses—and the side arguing for the proposition won in a landslide.

Interestingly, three of the four participants and both debaters arguing the affirmative indentify as liberals. The winning side was represented by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and Kirsten Powers, one of Fox News' sacrificial left-of-center contributors. Both consider themselves to be liberals. Their opponents were a very entertaining (and also very liberal) Angus Johnston, who studies student activism, and the George Mason University professor Jeremy Mayer. Mayer was the only one on stage who seemed reluctant to self-identify as a lefty, though he admitted he holds positions (like being pro-choice) that would lead most people to view him as liberal.

What was interesting was how many times both sides found themselves arguing against any and all campus censorship. The "against" side conceded up front that universities are all-too-regularly guilty of shutting down dissent. They thought the people doing the shutting down were usually college administrators, acting out of a desire to avoid "disruptiveness and clamor" rather than an ideologically motivatad instinct to silence those who hold views they don't like—but they agreed that silencing happens. In the end, the ground between the two sides was smaller than one might have expected going in.

Some of the best quotes of the night from both teams are below the jump, while a video of the full debate can be viewed here. It's worth a gander.

On Speech Codes

"No, there is no role for speech codes, especially on a campus. We hear a lot about how campuses are now supposed to be these 'safe spaces.' They should be physically safe. But they should be places that you go and you feel challenged. And you might feel angry, and you might feel upset, and you might read things and hear things that are intellectually diverse, and you might actually encounter people who think differently than you." —Kirsten Powers

"[College] should be a place where students are allowed to make mistakes—to say something that is offensive." —Kirsten Powers

"I think that speech codes are wrong. … And I also agree that speech can be painful and should be painful on a college campus. One of FIRE's cases is when conservative students hold an 'affirmative action bake sale,' and they price the goods at different prices so black kids can buy them up at 25 cents, but white kids have to pay $2. And it's a graphic representation of white resentment of affirmative action. And it really makes some black students very, very angry. But I would, as [someone on the liberal side today], fiercely defend the right of conservative students to do that, even if I would think it violates civility, by inflicting that kind of pain. That's what a college campus must do, is be open to those kinds of debates." —Jeremy Mayer

"Meanwhile, at Yale and Harvard and Princeton—the big schools that people would mean when they're talking about higher education—they all promise free speech to high heaven, and they should be held to those promises." —Greg Lukianoff

On Civility

"But speech that nobody opposes is not speech that needs protecting. … And you know, hyperbole is free speech, whether it's the hyperbole of students calling a speaker who said something unfortunate a racist, or the hyperbole of an administrator calling a polite letter a violent attack. Demonizing your opponent is free speech. But so is refusing to demonize them." —Angus Johnston

"John Stuart Mill, in his wonderful 1859 book On Liberty, talks about civility. And this is why you should always be concerned about calls for civility. He points out that civility ends up getting defined by the people who are in charge. And you'll notice that when people argue for civility, they tend to actually believe that whatever they say is civil. And if they're angry about it, it's righteous rage. But if you say it and it's kind of sharp or mean, then it's incivil. … And sometimes, disagreement—to be productive—can't be all that civil." —Greg Lukianoff

"Does she [a participant in another debate] have a right to do it [use the n-word]? Absolutely. But is it right for other people to say, 'Wow, that was really kind of gross'? Yes."  —Angus Johnston

"People will make mistakes and use the word 'racist' inappropriately. I don't think she [the participant in another debate who used the n-word] was a racist, but I fiercely would protect the right of people to call her racist. That's not censorship. That's free speech." —Jeremy Mayer

"Let me put it this way: I think that being called a racist is not the worst thing in the world. It's something that has happened to me. I have been on the receiving end of that, and I dealt with it. Sometimes the people calling me a racist were kind of right and sometimes they were kind of wrong, and in either situation, I learned something from it. And if somebody thinks that I'm a racist, I would far rather have them tell me that than not." —Angus Johnston

"When I was at college, my first month, a gay student group had a kiss-in in the mailroom. And back in '86 that was revolutionary to see men and men and women and women kissing deeply. It really created a discussion. That's free speech. And was it offensive, was it dangerous? Yeah. But that's what a campus should be."—Jeremy Mayer

On Trigger Warnings

"No, [trigger warnings] shouldn't be [on campus at all]. It's ridiculous." —Jeremy Mayer

"I think I actually am the nation's most prominent faculty supporter of trigger warnings at this point. I use trigger warnings in my classes. I think they are absolutely appropriate. I think they should never be mandatory. But I also think that it is absolutely crucial to create an environment where everybody can participate in a classroom discussion. And part of that is recognizing that we all come into the classroom as whole people who have our own experiences. And so if I am talking about the murder and the desecration of the body of Emmett Till, I would kind of like to know whether one of my students has just lost a son. And if one of my students has just lost a son, I would talk about Emmett Till in a different way than I would under other circumstances. I don't think that my free speech is being violated if I make that choice." —Angus Johnston

"To me, [the idea of trigger warnings] doesn't seem like something that's really encouraging a robust sort of intellectual debate. But look, if you want to do trigger warnings, you can do trigger warnings. The problem that has been raised has been with professors who have been told that they must provide trigger warnings." —Kirsten Powers

"[Trigger warnings] are a liberal idea based on sensitivity. I think they're well-intentioned [but] I think a lot of speech code ideas are well-intentioned." —Greg Lukianoff

On the Heckler's Veto

"The Heckler's Veto is a horrible thing, and it shouldn't happen, and frankly, it's pretty rare." —Angus Johnston

"When I was an undergraduate student, involved in various student organizations, I remember feeling afraid to talk about certain issues. I remember feeling like if I said the wrong thing, that I might get yelled at, or maybe somebody would even stop liking me. I remember that that scared me. And I remember that what it did sometimes is make me keep my mouth shut—which, as a 19-, 20-, 21-year-old white guy was maybe not the worst thing that could happen to a person.

"But the other thing that it did is it made me think more seriously about what I was going to say.  It made me chew on the stuff. And sometimes I did think seriously about what I was going to say, and I still said something that offended somebody else. And they let me know it. And here I am today, still alive, still doing OK. Part of free speech on campus is people being passionate about the degree to which they abhor what you say.

"I absolutely think that we need more free speech on campus when we're talking about administrators and faculty imposing their own values, whether ideological or not. But I also absolutely think that we need to stand up for the right for people to engage in rowdy, obnoxious debate, because rowdy, obnoxious debate is what made me what I am and it's what made a lot of you what you are." —Angus Johnston

NEXT: "Let's Just Kill 'Homeland Security'" Already!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lukianoff and (the very lovely) Powers aren’t very good liberals if they don’t recognize the importance of controlling the message.

    1. Yeah, I’d like to truly gauge the level of commitment with specific examples. I haven’t watched but it seems to me everyone will give these answers in the abstract. When it’s their ox getting gored on the altar of free speech they start meandering down the path of what’s “reasonable.”

      1. Not only did they fail to discuss specific examples, but they appear not to have touched on one of the most crucial issues of all (at least seen from a historical-cultural perspective), namely satire. Are the many twitter accounts in the “names” of university presidents, from which outrageous messages are regularly tweeted by campus recalcitrants, to be tolerated in an ordered liberty such as ours? Cf. (and here is a “specific example”) the efforts of New York City prosecutors to criminalize inappropriately deadpan Gmail parodies sent in the “name” of a well-connected NYU department chairman, documented at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com

    2. No. They understand it. They are just lying. They know full well what is going on and are pretending it isn’t happening.

      College administrators are not ideologically driven? Who are they kidding? That is an insult to the listener’s intelligence. Lukianoff and Powers are just smart liberals who know that one of their jobs as liberals is to help maintain plausible deniability for all of the oppression done to further liberalism.

      1. No, John, they aren’t lying. They are the ones who argued that liberals are stifling free speech.

      2. John, that’s completely nonsensical. Lukianoff constantly gets attacked by actual progressives because he’s such a staunch free speech defender.

        I know you hate the libruls, but you should probably reserve your hatred for when they’ve actually done something to deserve it.

        Lukianoff actually spends most of his time defending conservatives and libertarians since, in modern times, they’re the primary victims of this nonsense.

    3. I take that back. Angus and the other clown are the ones kidding the listener

      1. Good decision to change: Lukianoff and FIRE have been on the front lines defending free speech on campus. They regularly file suits against colleges over speech codes, etc.

      2. Then I take back my comment that I put down above this one. Sorry I didn’t scroll down further before criticizing you.

    4. I’d say they’re perfectly good liberals. They’re just really lousy progressives.

      Honestly, I’d take the position that the proposition isn’t true for precisely that reason.

  2. I never got the impression that Lukianoff was a “liberal”. That’s…weird.

    1. The one principled liberal perhaps? His career history certainly seems to indicate he’s a lefty.

  3. Evidently they didn’t debate the first amendment with enough college cunts on that day over two centuries ago.

  4. “Yeah more free speech is great!”

    There! See – no problem!

    I have a bridge for sale, too….

    1. The bridge to Almania. I envision a swaying extension into the yaw of peril.

  5. I had missed this. Thanks for reporting on it. Any notion as to why they didn’t invite a current or former administrator to be on the panel, assuming that one would have been willing? I mean, as constructed, there wasn’t much of a debate per se. Indeed, when you ask people in a general way “should on-campus free speech be defended,” who’s going to disagree? But obviously, in the real world, ideas of “free speech” are highly contingent.

    1. To clarify, the debate was specifically over whether *liberals* are stifling intellectual diversity. The side arguing the negative agreed stifling happens but said it was usually not ideologically driven.

  6. What a load of disingenuous garbage.

    The heckler’s veto is rare? Anyone who can say that with a straight face is not informed enough to be involved in this debate.

    And that’s just one.

    1. Yeah, the heckler’s veto is so rare that no American magazine and virtually no European magazines would republish the Danish Mohammad cartoons out of fear of rioting.

      It’s so rare that an angry minority of people can literally shut down the speech rights of international media.

      1. Um, this debate centered around college campuses.

        1. Yes, but the heckler’s veto is not rare anywhere. On a micro-scale, every college speech code is proof of the heckler’s veto. Most people aren’t clamoring for speech codes, they exist because activists made a fuss.

        2. Yeah, the more appropriate example would be all the revoked invitations to commencement speeches.

  7. Jesus Johnston is a fucktard. Heckler’s veto is “rare” but he spent his entire stint in college afraid to speak his mind?

    THAT IS THE FUCKING HECKLER’S VETO YOU INCREDIBLE NINCOMPOOP!!!!!

  8. Everyone believes in free speech, they just define it narrowly enough to censor when they feel like it. Ask them about citizens united and you will sort the wheat from the chaffe.

  9. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  10. I just got paid usd6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over usd 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.