Free Speech & Universities I: Invitations & Exclusions

While the right to free speech is considered fundamental in classical liberalism, contemporary liberals have been accused of being an enemy of this right. Some recent examples include incidents at Berkeley and Middlebury. As always, the matter of free speech is philosophically interesting, especially when it involves higher education.

One important distinction in regards to rights is that of the negative versus the positive. A negative right is not an evil right; rather it is a freedom such that the possessor is not entitled to be provided with the means to exercise the right. It is, roughly put, a right to not be interfered with. A positive right, in contrast, is an entitlement to the means needed to exercise the right. For example, the United States currently grants citizens a right to public K-12 education—in addition to having the liberty to seek this education, it is also provided to students. In contrast, college education is currently a negative right: students have the liberty to attend college, but are (generally) not provided with free education.

The right to free speech is generally taken to be a negative right; it is intended as a protection from impediment rather than an entitlement to the means to communicate. To use an obvious example, while I have the right to express my views no one is obligated to provide me with free radio or TV time in which to do so.

While university personnel have no right to unjustly interfere with free speech, they are also under no obligation to provide people with speaking opportunities on campus. Decisions about who to invite and who to allow to speak in official venues are often made on pragmatic grounds, such as which speakers will boost the reputation of the school or who happens to be friends with top administrators. There are also practical concerns about the cost of the speaker, the likelihood of trouble arising, and the extent of the interest in the speaker. While these practical concerns are important, decisions about who to invite (and who to exclude) should certainly be made on principled grounds.

One reasonable principle is that decisions should be made based on the educational value of having the speaker on campus. Since universities are supposed to educate students, it makes excellent sense for them to operate on this principle. Speakers who would offer little or nothing in the way of educational value could thus be justly denied invitations. Of course, education is not the only concern of a university in terms of what it offers to the students and the community. Speakers/presenters that offer things of artistic value or even mere entertainment value should also be given due consideration.

One obvious concern about deciding based on such factors is that there can be considerable debate about which speakers have adequate merit to warrant their invitation to campus. For example, the incident at Middlebury arose because some regard Charles Murray’s co-authored controversial book The Bell Curve as being based on pseudoscience and bad methodology. While these matters can be clouded with ideology, there are already clearly established standards regarding educational merit in regards to such things as methodology and legitimacy. The main problem lies in their application—but this is not a problem unique to picking speakers. It extends across the entire academy. Fortunately, the basic principle of educational merit is reasonable clear—but the real fights take place over the particulars.

Another seemingly sensible principle is a moral one—that those invited should reflect the values of the institution and perhaps the broader society. At the very least, those invited should not be evil and should not be espousing evil.

This principle does have some obvious problems. One is the challenge of deciding what conflicts with the values of the institution. Another is the problem that it is problematic to speak of the values of the broader society, given the considerable diversity of opinions on moral issues. When people use this approach, they are often simply referring to their own values and assuming that they are shared by society as a while. There is the enduring problem in ethics of sorting out what exactly is evil. And then there is the classic concern about whether academic or artistic merit can offset moral concerns. For example, a Catholic university might regard a pro-choice philosopher as endorsing a morally wrong position, yet also hold that having this philosopher engage a pro-life advocate in a campus debate to have educational merit. As another example, a liberal institution might regard an extreme libertarian as having morally problematic views, yet see educational merit in having them present their arguments as part of a series on American political philosophy.  As with the matter of merit, there are rational and principled ways to approach ethical concerns—but this area is far more fraught with controversy than questions of assessing educational merit.

While I do agree that speech can cause harm, I hold to a presumption in favor of free expression. As a principle, this means that if there is reasonable doubt as to whether to merit of a speech outweighs moral concerns about the speaker or content, then the decision should favor free expression. This is based on the view that it is better to run the risk of tolerating possible evil than to risk silencing someone who has something worth saying. As such, I generally favor a liberal (in the classic sense) approach to inviting speakers to universities.

In the next essay I will consider the matter of the “heckler’s veto”, which occurs when the crowd silences a speaker.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

  1. Kevin Henderson

    Anticipation and obligation. A university should make effort to vet speakers in their interest. If a speaker fails one time, that speaker can apply again. If sufficient arguments can be given in favor of the speaker, the university can invite the speaker.

    Uninviting or violently protesting speakers is not only unacceptable, it’s what children do when they do not get their favorite ice-cream or rescind a birthday invitation because their best friend stole their recently stole their boyfriend.

    Oddly, free speech is rarely an action item on this issue, since the views of the speaker are always available online. So there is a minor caveat to suggesting that anyone’s views are actually being censored.

  2. The way of endless,michael kors portefeuille, “the industry source said. due to the reform since July 15th was formally implemented,hogan online,Two people not only to assist in the investigation He breathed a sigh of relief. If a person speaks in a leisurely manner,giuseppe, network equipment investment of about 160 billion. “people’s Procuratorate criminal litigation rules” provisions: the witness and the victim asked a minor. companies in the door,michael kors pas cher, Jung Il Woo. 000 It is

  3. on the link, it definitely elevates the design for me! By: Farah I completely agree with everything you said! The hole in all saints doesn’t really seem aesthetic. I always thought the spider link didn’t really have nice detailing,cheap pandora rings, but now I can see the web, I understand why this would appeal… Other links that don’t really seem to contain much detail to me are: the dog,cheap pandora earrings, the cat, the fat bird and the teddy bear. Leann, I love your X,cheap pandora jewel

  4. Chapitre VI mourut tournée forestière & quot;? Que vas-tu forêt morte & quot; Shangguan Ray immédiatement sauté, marchait devant Shangguan Shangguan Lei Feng touché young lad front end,an all in one déclaré: & quot; Vous avez également brûlé confus, comment revenir à la forêt congelés & quot;?! ! ! Shang Feng an all in one dit: & quot; Père,christian louboutin, la raison pour laquelle je veux aller à la forêt de

  5. ornaments arranged in an asymmetrical fashion resembling a bundle of ornaments. Lastly, the Caribou Reindeer has faced the most criticism from readers,cheap pandora bracelets for sale, and?honestly it’s not my favorite either.? The charm shows the head of a very realistic reindeer,cheap pandora charms for sale, a popular animal around this holiday for their job of ferrying Santa to and fro on Christmas Eve.? The choice to only replicate the head is a bit disconcerting as it reminds me of a

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>