National Review Online
Wednesday, December 06, 2023
All of a sudden, America’s elite universities have
started to sound like John Stuart Mill. Asked yesterday by Representative Elise
Stefanik (R., N.Y.) whether students who call for “intifada” or shout “from the
river to the sea” were acting “contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct,”
Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, struck a notably enlightened pose. Such
“hateful, reckless, offensive speech,” Gay insisted, was “abhorrent” to her
personally, and “at odds with the values of Harvard.” But she could not in good
conscience move to do anything about it, given Harvard’s “commitment to free
expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful.”
Ah.
The first problem with Gay’s answer (which was not fixed
by a subsequent clean-up attempt) is that it is a brazen lie. Harvard does
not, in fact, “embrace a commitment to free expression.” It does not tolerate
views that its speech police consider to be “objectionable, offensive,
hateful.” And, as the
plain language of its own policies makes clear, it does not endure
opinions that are contrary to its “values.” There is, of course, a strong case
to be made for the university as an incubator of all ideas. Were Harvard known
for a consistent liberalism, it might be able to defend the indulgence of
students who chant “intifada” at their peers. But Harvard is not known for any
such thing. On the contrary: Harvard is known for sanctioning scholars, for
revoking acceptances, for disinviting academics, and for having created an
environment in which students feel unable to share their beliefs. Per the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Harvard’s score in the Free Speech Rankings is an
“abysmal” “0.00 out of a possible 100.00.” In its latest evaluation, FIRE
accorded Harvard a “-10.69,” which, the outfit recorded, is “more than six
standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations
below the second-to-last school in the rankings, its Ivy League counterpart,
the University of Pennsylvania.”
Pressed by lawmakers, the president of Penn, M. Elizabeth
Magill, was equally keen to wax lyrical about the joys of permissive
deliberation. Judging whether or not to crack down on those who demand the
genocide of Jews, Magill proposed, is “a context-dependent decision.” “If the
speech becomes conduct,” she concluded, “it can be harassment.” This, too, is a
defensible standard. Indeed, this is the standard that has been applied by the
Supreme Court in the ruling that currently governs the limits of free expression, Brandenburg
v. Ohio. But it is not Penn’s standard. Per FIRE, Penn has a “very poor”
record on speech, ranking 247th out of 248. Worse still, FIRE reports, one’s
experience at Penn is heavily dependent upon one’s political bent. For
“liberals,” the school is ranked 32nd in the country. For “conservatives,” it
sits at 220th. How’s that for “context-dependent”?
Some free-speech advocates watched yesterday’s hearings
and came away enthused. We were not among them. Far from having finally found
religion on the question of open expression, America’s elite universities seem
to have developed yet another double standard. When the targets of student
opprobrium are favored, they crack down. When the targets are Jews or the
perpetrators aren’t wearing red hats, they retreat into platitudes. This will
not do. One either believes in radical tolerance or one does not; one cannot
advance it and withdraw it when convenient, as one might change one’s clothes
to suit the season. At best, such behavior represents an unstable caprice; at
worst, it is the very definition of antisemitism. In a few months, this
Congress would do well to stage a follow-up session and to explore some of the
contradictions in approach. The results would be educational.
No comments:
Post a Comment