[icopyright one button toolbar]
To put this in context, it occurred prior to the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris.
The University of Chicago, through the Provost’s office, established a Committee on Freedom of Expression. The committee, comprised of seven professors from fields as diverse as medicine, law, psychology, literature and the arts, and headed by law professor Geoffrey Stone, was appointed to examine “recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” Here is an excerpt from the Committee’s Report.
[T]he University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
…
As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.
…
[I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
Here is where the Committee Report should be. It opens on one of my computers, but not the one I write on.. My excerpts come from reports on the Report. Some of those sources include the Wall Street Journal and F.I.R.E. [The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education].
The Committee’s report did not go unchallenged. The student newspaper of the University of Chicago, The Maroon, editorialized against it. Below is an excerpt from the Maroon’s editorial though I recommend reading it in full, including the extensive comments.
[T]he University must take the issues of diversity and inclusion into account when writing about the importance of free speech. It is not enough for the University to simply reiterate its commitment to free speech; it must also discuss its nuances and where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable speech fall.
–
Freedom of expression is essential to a productive and creative learning environment. This means students must be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from their own. Speech that challenges commonly held assumptions can be beneficial. Hate speech benefits no one because it seeks only to tear down, not to build up. The University needs to directly address hate speech for the good of productive discourse.
–
…In order to forge an inclusive campus climate, the University must maintain a consistent commitment to eradicating hate speech and harassment in campus discussion. Free expression and a campus climate of inclusivity are not mutually exclusive. Rather, fostering a culture of inclusivity will serve to increase the quality and diversity of discourse on campus.
Recently a similar exchange of views has happened here at TMV in the aftermath of the Paris murders. This is posted to show that we are not alone, and it didn’t take murderous terrorism for the University of Chicago to recognize the issue and undertake the discussion. My views have been expressed previously, but perhaps hearing from the two points of view as expressed by others will assist in the debate or in forging, enhancing or modifying the opinions of readers.
The Maroon editorial is here .
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.