In choosing themes to write about in this blog, I aim to avoid topics that are already covered thoroughly elsewhere. I thought that the free-speech debate (and the related moral panic over “cancel culture”) was one of those topics. Then came the infamous Harper’s article, the feigned outrage and victimization narrative told throughout the Republican National Convention, and the chilling case of L.D. Burnet which is now exploding across media platforms. I wish to add some balance to the conversation by sharing what social scientists studying free expression are saying and to amplify the concepts of brave spaces in public spaces. This topic is so broad that I will split my thoughts into two entries for the first time. This is part one, which focuses on free speech on university campuses and covers the idea of brave spaces.
Historically, free speech concerns centered on the rights of marginalized groups. When reviewing the advancement of free speech in America, one cannot miss the efforts of nineteenth-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass and the civil rights activists of the 1960s. I am old enough to remember the culture fights of the 1980s when conservative interest groups fought to censor—today we might say cancel—artists and even campaigned to defund the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). Certainly, back then, liberal groups were the defenders of free expression as they were also most often the target of censorship attempts.
Today, it tends to be those who align with conservative politics who take it as a matter of faith that they are the most likely victims of persecution and censorship. It is hard not to notice that the far-right only started crying foul as groups who were once on the sidelines became empowered to push back. Campus speech experts propose a concerted effort by networks of conservative foundations and think tanks to marginalize those on the left. Such networks promote right-wing ideas by labeling liberals as enemies of free speech (thus canceling them out). According to a Pew Research Survey, the consequences go beyond the threat posed to campus speech. It has led Republicans to increasingly see universities as “an enemy to the United States.” While patently absurd, such attitudes show how universities have become a concern within America’s culture wars. And some concern is not entirely unwarranted, if not for the reasons usually given.
College educators live in an environment where they may be attacked by conservative or liberal students who have magnified voices because of social media and the growth of strongly partisan mass media outlets. Stridently conservative students have right-wing media outlets like Campus Watch, The College Fix, and Campus Reform, which devote themselves to getting professors (usually tenured) fired at their disposal. For most, it is their official reason for existence. The sites encourage students to secretly record teachers they deem as too liberal or “Marxist.” Maliciously edited videos of targeted professors are then published on the sites, hoping they would spread. Some have gone viral, spreading to neo-fascist sites like Breitbart and more mainstream outlets like Fox News. Once “doxed,” professors can face the full brunt of an army of trolls who often issue death threats and deluge university administrators, demanding that their professors be sacked.
This is the very scenario that played out last week for L. D. Burnett, a history professor at Collin College who tweeted a snarky remark about Pence’s performance during the Vice-Presidential debate. She wrote about her ordeal in “The Chronicle of Higher Education,” and since then, the story has gone viral. You can read it here, along with a thoughtful response to it published by “Inside Higher Ed” here. While I am sharing links, here is another write-up that breaks down the most notorious “liberal professor” take-down site, Campus Reform, which launched the campaign against Professor Burnett.
More liberal students tend to take a zero-tolerance stance on hate speech and are more likely to demand the disinvitation of controversial speakers—a close analog to L.D. Burnett would be the case of Steven Pinker, the Harvard linguist. Some students claimed Pinker was guilty of racial insensitivity and demanded that he be removed as a distinguished fellow of the Linguistic Society of America and fired from his post. After an investigation, Pinker was cleared, and consequently has grown in stature and in demand as a spokesperson in the fight against “cancel culture.”
I am reassured by data that shows that while campus ideologues—whether liberal or conservative—can make it hell for their teachers, they are outliers. Two markers of intolerance on campus would be the number of campus speakers disinvited and attitudes about speech concerns expressed by a representative sample of college students. Fortunately, social scientists provide both. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) keeps a database of the number of times speakers are disinvited to universities. Their findings show that it is a rare event. In 2019, there were only 19 successful disinvitations nationwide. It broke down that three came from conservative groups, the rest from left-leaning ones.
As for student attitudes, political scientist Jeffrey Sachs found that four years of college makes students less supportive of banning speech. Using GSS data, which NORC has been asking since the early 70s, found that issue after issue, the 18-34 age group are the most tolerant of potentially offensive speech, while older Americans are the least. You can go to their site, filter by age, and see for yourself (I love Business Intelligence Software like Tableau and Power B.I.). For an interesting interpretation of the data, check out this entry on the new ideological fractures.
So, despite the press’s warning about college campuses being places where most students demand to be sheltered from contrarian or offensive speech, that is simply not the case. What I am hearing from ideologically driven free-speech warriors is “Freedom of speech for me, and not for you.” Administrators need to fight back to protect the rights of their faculty and students. We must also keep in mind that historically free expression lacked equity and meant supporting those in authority. Some people have always been able to speak louder than others. Taking it to the extreme, if protecting free speech included the allowance of hate speech that attacks individuals or groups, the value of inclusion is undermined. Most institutions rarely live up to their ideals of diversity and equity—and have been dominated by white leaders for their entire history. When called upon, they should heed the call when asked to actualize real inclusivity.
Students are right to ask for safe spaces, and they should be provided. They are essential to human development and flourishing. And when I say safe spaces, I do not mean the caricature painted by some pundits which would look like a padded room with soundproof walls filled with fidget spinners. I refer to the kind of safe spaces that James Hatch, a 52-year-old former Navy Seal, encountered when he went to Yale in 2019. He wrote about his encounter with university life and how it did not match the image he was led to expect in a wonderful essay titled, My Semester With the Snowflakes.” In his heartwarming essay, he described the real meaning of a safe space to be, “an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgment.” Because safe spaces have clear ground rules about appropriate interaction, students are freed to allow themselves to be vulnerable, explore ideas, and express themselves. Anyone familiar with encounter groups, or even A.A., should be familiar with the concept without realizing it.
I argue that along with safe spaces, however, universities must also provide brave spaces. One of the best definitions of brave spaces comes from Harvard educator John Palfrey, who defines them as “environments in which the primary purpose of the interaction is a search for the truth, rather than support for a particular group, even insofar as some of the discussions will be uncomfortable.” Brave spaces are necessary so that serious discourse can occur. Students and the public can be exposed to uncomfortable and contrarian ideas and be given the opportunity to respond. Brave spaces are the classrooms, lecture halls, and public forums that hold broader restrictions like the first amendment and university expectations. Outside of campus, they would be the public square where speech and expression occur.
I am attracted to brave and safe space because they help reconcile two values essential to democracy: free expression and inclusion. The finding of a recent survey that 63% of Black students reported instances where they censored themselves on campus clearly, shows that colleges and universities have a long road toward true inclusivity. As Palfrey argues, and I agree, safe and brave spaces links commitment to free expression to that of equality.
I will give examples in the second part of this blog entry on free speech, highlighting the importance of promoting brave spaces alongside safe spaces. Recent history shows that when controversial speakers are shut down, they only become martyrs and gain public sympathy. It is better to fight bad speech with more, better speech. I believe that principle is more than mere pablum. It works.
I plan on publishing the second part of my thoughts on free speech by next week referencing the consequences of recent campus riots and the Unite the Right Rally. In the meantime, stay safe.
