On April 24 the Student Government Association (SGA) in conjunction with The Campus hosted a panel that addressed the question “What Should Free Speech on Middlebury’s Campus Look Like?” Student panelists included Juan Andrade-Vera ’19, Hannah Blackburn ’17, Austin Kahn ’17.5 and Ivan Valladares ’17.
In an email to the student body, the SGA Institutional Diversity Committee wrote, “In the midst of the recent Charles Murray incident, our campus has found itself again thrown into a difficult conversation concerning free speech, and we think it is high time that we take this conversation in a productive manner: attempting to define what free speech should look like on Middlebury’s Campus.”
Vice President for Academic Development Tim Spears delivered opening remarks that contextualized the history of free speech debates at the College. Spears cited instances of political activism in which issues of freedom of speech have been handled or employed.
“It seems to me that freedom of speech is often invoked, or you often see it in action, when groups want to speak to their own particular issue on campus and are shut down by others on campus,” Spears said. “For instance, if political posters are put up in the student center and are then defaced or ripped down by students, then that has been interpreted as one group of students infringing on the freedom of speech of other students.”
He continued, “What I’m trying to get at is the principle has been invoked in both ways. But from my opinion, I don’t think freedom of speech has been invoked as explicitly as it has been in recent events.”
Geovany Martinez ’19, co-director of the Institutional Diversity Committee, asked the first question about how free speech can improve society and Middlebury’s community.
Valladares began the conversation by reading opening remarks. “I think freedom of speech is a choice. As a private institution, Middlebury has to make that choice whether or not we want to allow freedom of speech to be unrestrained on our campus,” he said. “If we then choose to not let all voices or ideas be heard in our community, then we are choosing to silence and repress certain people.”
Kahn responded by noting that Valladares’s perspective is often classified as an “absolutist idea of free speech.” He continued, “[This idea] supports that all speech regardless of content or of the person speaking it should be absolutely protected under all circumstances. I think the underlying idea that supports that stance is a slippery slope.”
Kahn disagreed that restricting certain speech will necessarily lead to a complete silencing of all forms of speech.
“One thing that’s important to keep in mind during this conversation is that a lot of absolutist free speech advocates are making it sound like there are only two options. The first is the absolute whole-sale restriction of speech… The second is that all speech regardless of its impact or potential impact must be protected and permitted,” he said. “I think that’s a dangerous dichotomy.”
According to Kahn, there is significant motivation for the College to dedicate time and thought to determine what sorts of speech can be qualified as “dangerously discriminatory,” which would potentially violate other College policies of providing a space for students that is free of discrimination.
Andrade-Vera focused on addressing the question “Who is this for?” in relation to free speech. “I would say that the ultimate problem is that the Right keeps calling for this ‘collective freedom of speech’ and a ‘collective freedom of support,’ but often when I argue for my opinions or when I try to argue against Charles Murray, I don’t feel that support. In fact, I feel the opposite of that,” he said. “We should always ask who gets defended when they speak their mind and who doesn’t.”
Blackburn elaborated on Kahn’s previous point about when speech conflicts with an institution’s values. “I think there are a lot of ways that free speech isn’t equally free in this current moment. I think part of our role in facilitating free speech is allowing free speech to be as truly free and as accessible to everyone as possible,” she said. “In some ways that might mean holding back certain kinds of speech to create room for other types of speech that aren’t heard.”
Blackburn then suggested the creation of other processes for how speakers are brought to campus. “When a speaker is brought to campus by a small group of students, the onus falls on everyone else to make a convincing argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed, which often gets portrayed as censorship,” she said.
Other questions and topics focused on the role of protests and free speech, the definition of hate speech, institutionalizing certain voices, community standards and ideas of inclusion.
