A review of Sigal R. Ben-Porath. (2017). Free Speech on Campus.
By Ashenafi Alemu Aboye*
Cite as: Aboye, A. A. (2019). Free speech on campus by Sigal R. Ben-Porath (review). The Review of Higher Education, 42(4), E-1-E-3. doi:10.1353/rhe.2019.0084
Email ashenafi.alemu@ubc.ca
Sigal R. Ben-Porath, a professor of philosophy and education and a former chair of the university’s Committee on Open Expression at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote Free Speech on Campus, a detailed documentation of controversial issues surrounding academic freedom along with a framework to deal with such issues across the board. The book is organized into a preface, four chapters, and a conclusion and practical guideline section which spans over 128 pages including the notes and acknowledgments. In the preface, Ben-Porath offers readers the context in which she experienced the issue of free speech on campus, the sit-in incident staged by students at the University of Pennsylvania’s administration building which was later resolved through negotiation after the students’ staged the protest for about two days. From there, Ben-Porath proceeds further to a brief introduction of what each of the forthcoming chapters present to her readers.
In Chapter 1 entitled The state of the debate, the writer presents the different perspectives of the argument along with concrete examples from real-life incidents across the universities in the United States. In this section, Ben-Porath mentions a number of crucial incidents on campus including controversial issues such as the Halloween Costumes and Safe space at Yale, Struggling for Racial Equality in Missouri, Rejecting trigger warning in Chicago, and Chasing away controversial speakers at Berkley and Middleburg, among others. What is most important about this chapter is the fact that the writer traced the different views that are challenging, controversial, as well as limiting and surrounding free expression on campus. The writer organized these assumptions into three myths. Myth #1 discusses why free speech is a concern only in isolated campus; Myth #2 presents the misconception that free speech controversies should be resolved by enforcing civility; Myth #3 raises the dilemmas in upholding the values of free speech and simultaneously protecting vulnerable groups.
After critically reflecting on these misconceptions as wrong conceptualizations and barriers to free speech on campus, Ben-Porath proceeds to Chapter 2 entitled Inclusive freedom, where she develops this notion of inclusive freedom as a framework that can operate in all contexts with a potential of addressing the controversies surrounding free speech on campus. In advancing the argument for freedom of expression on campus, Ben-Porath develops the notion of inclusive freedom and explicitly pronounces and recommends inclusive freedom in response to the polarizing views of the intellectual left and right wing advocates. In the chapter, Ben-Porath presents why it is essential to allow free speech for all stakeholders simultaneously recognizing the demands of vulnerable groups, the issue of diversity on campus, avoiding harm as well as diversifying curricula. The arguments develop clearly succinctly in the statements that fan out the need for universities to host respectful conversations even among people who disagree. The major foundation of the argument for inclusive freedom is also fortified in her re-affirmation of the fact that “free speech and inquiry are central tenets of the university or college life and its mission, and that diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be respected” (pp. 42-43).
In the book, Ben-Porath advances the argument that “Curtailing free speech based on content or even worse-the presumed motivation of the speaker, raises the risk of creating some version of thought police- namely, a regulatory mechanism for deciding which views and opinions warrant an invitation to campus and which do not”(p. 41). In Chapter 3 entitledIdentity and free speech on the quad, and Chapter 4 entitled Putting civility in its place, the writer suggests the ways to implement inclusive freedom in the public context and in classrooms, respectively.
In Identity and free speech on the quad, the writer advocates for inclusive freedom by challenging the notion of safe space, identity and harmful speech, civility and how they are conceptualized and handled currently. An interesting read in the chapter comes where the writer discusses two types of safety: Intellectual and dignitary safety. On the one hand, the writer advocates for dignitary safety and writes “dignitary safety is the sense of being an equal member of the community and of being invited to contribute to a discussion as valued participant” (p. 62). The writer states that intellectual safety, which is presented in the book as the refusal to listen to difference and as a denial of opposing viewpoints, is harmful to free inquiry (p. 62).
Similarly, in Putting civility in its place, the writer raises crucial issues that curtail free expression in the classroom ranging from the issue of tenure to campus student groups and their leaders in the light of identity. In this section, the writer states the need to distinguish between speech inside and outside the classroom, the notion of safety in these two contexts and how these can be dealt with in the light of inclusive freedom as a framework. The writer argues that intellectual safety should be rejected in the classroom, that students and instructors should be able to challenge and be challenged by different lines of thought. Likewise, the writer also suggests that dignitary safety should be protected without curtailing any form of expression, in which case attention to forms of speech and responses to such forms of speech be critically and carefully considered not to curtail freedom of expression.
In relation to this, the writer deliberates over such issues as academic freedom and freedom of expression. On top of these, the writer suggests that intellectual and civic commitments should be considered as two other layers that should guide instructors’ intellectual engagement within the free speech framework. In this sense, instructors are intellectuals engaged not only in the production and dissemination of knowledge but also in the education of students to prepare them for their broader social roles and responsibilities. Thus, Ben-Porath suggests that instructors, as well as their students “, have the responsibility to make sure that those in class are not silenced” and that dignitary harms are avoided amidst the application of theInclusive Freedom framework (p. 107).
In the Conclusion and practical guidelines section, the writer suggests three categories of recommendations. For instructors, Ben-Porath suggests assuming responsibility for creating an open and inclusive classroom environment which allows for all individuals to express their perspectives without any limitations. Ben-Porath also recommends engaging in expressions of disagreement as a more effective way of learning than mere listening and avoidance of sensitive issues. Moreover, this section of the book stresses that no one should be silenced from expressing one’s perspective. An interesting part of the recommendation is the more straightforward expression about bias reporting systems on campus as unhelpful, undemocratic, and underestimating the demand of learners for their chilling effects. The writer thus suggests that students should learn to let go of any speech from their instructors unless it is hard to ignore for such reasons as its frequency of occurrence. In the later case, the writer suggests learners to directly consult and confront the instructor. In the event that it is hardly possible to approach the instructor for various reasons, Ben-Porath suggests consulting faculty members who are more close to the instructor to discuss and bring the issue to the attention of the instructor.
For student groups related to identity and politics, the writer suggests solidarity and collaboration with similar others who share the same concern and value than campaigning to disinvite speakers. College administrators should follow a more democratic praxis of empowering students than prohibiting them from organizing legitimately around issues that matter most to them. In this way, the book demonstrates the application of inclusive freedom as a framework for free expression on campus. The final issue discussed in the Conclusion and practical guideline section is the idea of Open Expression Monitors. Open Expression Monitor is a volunteer position which is held by a faculty member, staff or students to intervene when the rights to express oneself are disrupted or limited. They are invited to attend events and speeches so as to make sure that no one is blocked by another party from expressing their views.
The book is a significant contribution towards understanding a participatory approach to academic freedom. It relates to current issues in the field. It lies in the domain of similar frameworks that address intellectual engagement and academic freedom. Unlike earlier conceptions of academic freedom as positive freedom and negative freedom (O’Hear, 1988), or a focus on the freedom of the intellectual to engage in self-referentiality and symmetry criticality (Jakobson, 2012), this book offers inclusive freedom as an all-rounded, participatory and insightful approach which allows for free thinking and self expression for the professoriate and equally importantly for the students. The subject under discussion is focused on whether free expression should be granted for all individuals on campus and how. For some individuals who are interested in researching issues related to academic freedom, the inclusive freedom framework might be a useful resource as it offers another perspective in understanding freedom of expression on campus.
It appears that the notion of inclusive freedom might be problematic as presented in the book because by allowing unconditional freedom of expression for all individuals, the university may venture on the risk of unintentionally promoting epistemic violence (Spivak, 1988) in the name of what Ben-Porath calls epistemic justification. It is crucial to separately reflect on that and further discuss how to handle harm that is targeting extremely vulnerable groups such as historically disadvantaged people who are already suffering from intergenerational trauma and the effects of multiple layers of colonialism. In this sense, the inclusive freedom framework may leave room for promoting further “violence” while allowing for non-discriminatory expression on campus. As a result, further deliberations or some exceptions to the rule should necessarily be suggested along with the framework to fulfill the role of education as an instrument of liberating the mind both for the socially advantaged as well as historically marginalized groups in the academy and the society.
The practical guidelines recommended in the book are quite workable in real life situations. However, the notion of Open Expression Monitors might be challenging to implement in some contexts. For instance, in the event that an invited speaker is already known for harmful speech or acts somewhere else and groups of students are already at the height of emotion and no longer able to listen to the speaker patiently, it is hardly possible for one or two Open Expression Monitors to ensure the inclusive freedom of the speaker or any member of the audience. Also, the Open Expression Monitors might appear like a thought police and the very notion of having such monitors might be challenging. Last but not the least, it may be hardly possible to recruit faculty members for such volunteer positions. It may specially be challenging to recruit volunteer faculty members whose expertise coincides well in the area of academic freedom and higher education issues, not to mention the issue of tenure and professoriate working to make ends meet in the current neoliberal order. This leaves the position a volunteering opportunity only for students and probably some administrative staff members. This, in turn, opens some room for possibilities of reflecting extreme stands such as promoting the interest of majority students or being loyal to the interest of university administration than the implementation of inclusive freedom.
The writer made frequent references to news articles and feature stories to advance arguments about freedom of expression on campus. The writer engages in minimal academic dialogue to further build the argument surrounding freedom of expression on campus. The writer developed the proposal of an inclusive freedom of expression framework as well as the notion of harm based on such works as Mill’s On Liberty (p. 38) and other scholarly contributions of significance in areas of segregation, safe space, and civility in philosophy and educational research. The book also touches upon the legal issues surrounding free speech briefly. One argument in the book is that some campuses have no clear guideline to clarify the ways in which various forms of speech may be regulated due to the assumption that general laws apply to the campus community as they do apply elsewhere. The writer thus advances the argument that further attention should be given to free speech “beyond what the First Amendment, academic freedom, and other laws and regulations require” (p. 104). With regards to this, the book might have been enriched had the writer included a real case and how it was resolved from the perspective of American civil code, among others. The legal issues around free speech and case laws that might have emerged from related controversies should have made a substantial portion of the argument.
The essential quality of the book is the recency of the issues that are raised. The book offers real-life examples and challenges to free expression on campus. It embarks on challenging the current issues on college campuses which supposedly curtail academic freedom in the name of protecting vulnerable groups. It dismantles the different limiting responses and arguments such as the issue of civility, identity and safe space which potentially retrench the free expression of intellectuals. The book also offers specific strategies to handle controversial issues in the classroom, in extracurricular activities and in students’ engagement in activism and identity groups in ways that should not necessarily preclude the right to exercise free speech on campus. In a way, the book documents and profiles some of the most recent controversial historical incidents that require critical analysis and further scholarly appraisal. As a result, anyone who is on-campus as a student, faculty member as well as administrator in any discipline would benefit reading this timely book. It will specifically be beneficial for student activists, intellectuals and researchers in educational studies, among others.
References
- Jakobson, K. (2012). Beyond the specialist/generalist framework: reflections on three decades of the comparative history of intellectuals discourse. In S. Nagy-Zekmi & K. Hollis (Eds.), Global Academe: Engaging intellectual discourse (pp. 61-84). New York: Palgrave & McMillan.
- O’Hear, A. (1988). Academic Freedom and the University In Tight, M. (ed.), Academic Freedom and Responsibility (pp. 6-16). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
- Spivak, G.C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea, 21-78