Does University President Michael Schill know what academic freedom means? In a letter he released last month, Schill wrote:
“We embrace the values of free expression because they are integral to our mission — the fearless pursuit of knowledge and the inculcation of critical thinking. Ideas — even unpopular ones — must be protected, but the manner in which those ideas are expressed should be consistent with the particular and special needs of an academic community.”
To most, it would appear that Schill is prepared to defend controversial views and opinions wholesale. But, earlier in the letter, Schill provided a revealing caveat:
“There is no room on our campus for antisemitism; there is no room for Islamophobia; there is no room for racism and other forms of identity-based hate. Northwestern will not tolerate behavior or speech that harms members of our community.”
The problem with Schill’s anti “identity-based hate” proviso, which is articulated in the University’s new Intimidation Standard, lies not with its aim to eliminate bigotry but rather with the reality that there is no clear definition of the hate it aims to eradicate. For instance, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism could inappropriately marginalize the views of many students, including some Jewish students, as unacceptable at NU. Additionally, accusations of racism, arguably one of the most ambiguously defined words in the English language, could be levied against any student who suggests explanations other than racism for the significant disparities in test scores between Black and white students.
A clear depiction of this caveat is in the Intimidation Standard, which “explicitly prohibits … abusive, demeaning, harassing, humiliating, intimidating, threatening or violent behavior that substantially affects the ability of the person or group to learn, work or live in the University environment.”
Similarly, in the Statement on Free Expression and Institutional Speech, Schill’s Presidential Advisory Committee almost meets the mark in his defense of free speech but ultimately falls short when saying, “Northwestern cannot condone speech that threatens, harasses … or hinders the rights of others to learn.” While physically-threatening speech has no place on campus, Schill hedges by adding caveats for speech that “hinders the rights of others to learn,” which makes students’ subjective emotional responses a factor in determining the range of permissible speech on campus.
I can already imagine a scenario in which a student is found guilty of affect(ing) “the ability of the person or group to learn, work or live in the University environment” by discussing uncomfortable facts or voicing heterodox views. After all, in response to a benign op-ed I wrote in my freshman year, which advocated an array of the most cliche conservative policies, a student wrote in The Daily what was one of the most tedious articles I have ever read, despite being only 700 words in length.
In it, she said that my proposals were “based on an ideology that inherently marginalizes and silences oppressed groups while uplifting colonial, capitalist and imperialist hierarchies.” This letter to the editor, which included jargon like “transformative liberation” and peculiar declarations of solidarity with “every queer, BIPOC and individual with disabilities who experiences violence, trauma and oppression on a daily basis,” revealed how definitions of racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, trauma and oppression have been voided of their original meaning and can be applied to any idea, opinion or even fact that violates liberal and Progressive orthodoxies.
In a political climate where defending free markets, pointing out statistical facts and biological realities is considered an “ism” or “phobia,” NU’s policy on speech must be clear that it does not accommodate these accusations that act as emotional blackmail and should take a step further in defending the freedom to express beliefs others call racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.
In effect, the Intimidation Standard and the ambiguities in NU’s speech policy more broadly could end up being a form of institutionalized intimidation against all students’ and faculty’s right to free expression.
Schill’s vision for the University seems to be fractured. On one hand, he wants to fulfill the purpose of the University — the pursuit of truth via free intellectual inquiry and discussion — and on the other, he has given room to the children at NU who would see that the University turns into a daycare center where students’ emotions are the litmus test on permissible speech.
What President Schill must decide is whether or not he wants to continue operating a nursery, or whether he wants to devote his time to finding ways to make NU the most academically prestigious institution in the country. NU’s students are adults and should be treated as such.
Schill would be better off — both professionally and personally — if he adopted the Chicago Principles alone regarding speech. Not only would he take a giant step forward in creating a strong community of resilient adults, he would also save himself time fielding different concerns from various identity groups on campus, instead being able to send a simple email to complaining students:
“Northwestern defends the right of its community members to express whatever views, no matter how immoral or unjust you may perceive them to be. If you don’t like that, transfer to UPenn.
Best wishes,
President Schill”
Caleb Nunes is a McCormick junior. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
