In a university-wide email last Tuesday, Boston University President Robert Brown announced the creation of two committees which will address freedom of expression on BU’s campus.
Brown wrote that he believes freedom of speech is a timely matter that BU needs to address through developing a “set of University-wide policies that articulate and affirm our commitment to freedom of expression on campus.”
However, there does not seem to be a clear instance when freedom of speech has been an issue on campus. There have not been protests against speakers or the silencing of ideologies.
In 2015, Saida Grundy, an assistant professor of sociology, tweeted controversial statements which can be perceived as highly inflammatory. She wrote, “white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges.” In another, she wrote, “…deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing.”
Brown, in a letter addressing the controversy, defended Grundy’s right to “hold and express her opinions.” Given this was the last major freedom of speech controversy related to Boston University, the foundation of two speech committees appears to be weirdly timed.
The first committee — the Free Speech Policy Committee — will create a statement that “describes and affirms the University’s commitment to free speech.” The second committee — the Free Speech Operations Committee — will review and edit speech and expression policies that are presently in place at BU.
But what exactly is the point of the first committee? What revolutionary ideas regarding freedom of speech could be brought forth? If there is currently an unclear policy on freedom of speech, the formation of the first committee may only lead to tighter restrictions.
According to the free speech committees’ website, the presentation of the results of these committees will not occur until the Fall 2019 semester. Brown is presenting this issue as pressing, but if this were the case, the university ought to release a declarative statement regarding its position on free speech sooner.
This is not to say that the restriction of speech at U.S. colleges and universities is not an issue. In December, it was announced that UC Berkeley would pay $70,000 to a conservative group to settle a freedom of speech lawsuit. The University of Wisconsin established a strict policy that penalizes individuals for substantially disrupting the rights of people to “engage in or listen to expressive activity.”
The feedback these committees will receive may end up creating extremist policies that do not reflect the values of the entire student body. After all, the people taking the time to give feedback are likely to be those who have very strong opinions. This must be taken into account when creating a policy that is moderate and fair to all parties.
Liberal students should not crowd out speech unless it clearly poses a threat to the student body. If Ben Shapiro wants to speak on campus, he should be able to do so. But we are not aware of any restrictions that exist that would dissuade him from speaking.
It is important that the university focuses on laying out a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Free speech and expression is a battle of ideas in an inclusionary method. Hate speech is that which intentionally excludes, alienates or threatens the safety of specific groups or individuals through dangerous rhetoric.
Those are the guidelines BU should announce — and it should not wait several months to do so.
