Caleb Nunes’ recent op-ed in The Daily Northwestern is a shameful position to see from a member of the NU community. While Nunes raises reasonable concerns regarding the potential for targeted enforcement of NU’s new regulations regarding speech and protest — regulations which are certainly deserving of criticism and provide much room for improvement — he chooses to fixate on the right of students to espouse racist and sexist views, and laments about what I can only summarize as students holding views different than his.
While I would certainly like to hold the more charitable view that Nunes’ chief concern is with the University intimidating activists, I know he is a capable writer and that if this truly was his primary complaint, his article would have properly focused on it. It should be self-explanatory why protecting hateful speech is harmful, yet since that proposal nevertheless has some support, I’ll attempt to clarify its faults before presenting my own view.
The issue Nunes refers to when questioning NU’s simultaneous support of free speech and refusal to tolerate hateful speech is highly reminiscent of the philosophical idea of the paradox of tolerance. To avoid inane accusations of improperly using jargon, I can define this simply as the issue a society (or a university, in this case) faces when attempting to uphold an ideal of tolerance, over whether that tolerance should extend to perspectives that are themselves intolerant. If intolerant perspectives are allowed, they may eventually push out all other ideas, and so the most widely accepted solution to the paradox is simply that ideologies which refuse to share a respect for tolerance should not be afforded the same platform as other views. More simply, one who refuses to respect the personhood and opinions of others may be barred from the discussion without breaking the norm of tolerance.
If University President Michael Schill were to adopt Nunes’ position, implicitly encouraging views that, as Nunes himself acknowledges, are racist, sexist or otherwise based on restricting who is able to engage in a society on equal terms, we risk allowing these ideas to push all others out of the conversation. If students can freely spread disparaging and intimidating false ideas about members of our community, it degrades not only the capacity for free discussion but also the ability of students to learn and the reputation of the University. Yet, ironically, Nunes would suggest that in order to maintain this flawed attempt at protecting free speech, President Schill should dismiss any disagreement out of hand, rather than engage with any criticism or alternative views.
This proposal of how to protect free speech is flawed, yet I certainly do not mean for my criticism of Nunes’ proposal to be interpreted as a defense of NU’s new regulations. The issue remains that the ambiguous phrasing allows for University officials to target particular views for illegitimate reasons. But more problematic than this ambiguity are the root causes of the distrust our community holds for the University’s administration. The reason for this mistrust lies in how the University has enforced policies about free speech in the past. Primarily, there’s a feeling of inconsistency in how the regulations are applied and a great deal of opacity in how the administration chooses to enforce them. The solution to these issues, broadly, is for the administration to gain back the trust of the student body by committing to greater transparency in all aspects of their enforcement of free speech regulations.
The most obvious aspect of this is for all proceedings to be made more transparent. Last spring, The Daily published an article containing student testimonials regarding the confusing nature of the University’s proceedings against students related to academic dishonesty. The lack of understanding by the student body of how the University conducts investigations, makes rulings and determines sanctions leaves room for students to fill in the gaps with their own inferences, which are often understandably uncharitable toward the University. Full transparency in these matters would not only allow students to understand these processes but also to independently verify that the University is consistent in applying them, alleviating the fears that the University is unfairly targeting certain students or groups. After all, NU’s regulations against hazing — described by the University as any action, which in the context of affiliation with a group, unintentionally or intentionally, and presented as either optional or required, produces discomfort, harassment, degradation or ridicule — are written even more broadly, yet there is little complaint about their potential for abuse. We trust the University to enforce its regulations about hazing fairly, although it has room to abuse its power, yet when it comes to free speech, many of us are wary of the administration’s intentions.
Simply explaining how the disciplinary proceedings work, however, is not enough. In order for the University to regain the trust of its students, it must be able to justify the regulations it places on us. The new regulation prohibiting demonstrations at The Rock, for example, has been defended as attempting to limit disruption of classes. But what about the limitations on chalking? Surely writing or drawing on the sidewalk wouldn’t constitute a disruption to classes, nor on any student’s ability to access campus, nor is it inherently intimidating (which would of course fall under the intimidating speech regulation regardless). What, then, is the reason for this particular regulation? Without a justification presented by the University, a student could reasonably suspect that it is meant solely to limit student activism. If the University intends to win back the trust of its students, it must commit to full transparency regarding both the reasons for its regulations as well as the processes through which they are enforced.
These adjustments would by no means be enough to fully rectify the issues of the new speech regulations, but they would indicate good faith on the part of the University and act as a starting point for further improvement, rather than simply promoting more hatred and division as Nunes’ proposal to protect hateful conduct would cause. Of course, while students who disagree are certainly welcome to transfer to the University of Pennsylvania, I firmly believe that engaging in thoughtful discussion with those who hold opposing views is more productive than forming echo chambers solely of agreement.
Cass Dempsey is a Weinberg freshman. She 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.
