Free Speech and Hypocrisy

I am a strong advocate of free speech. Others define freedom as the ability to own any kind of gun they want or to do whatever they want with their land. My definition of freedom is the freedom to write whatever I want as long as I’m not committing libel. I flatter myself that, in contrast to gun advocates or property rights folks, I have some support in this from the Founders of our country. They made the First Amendment first for a reason.

The problem for me is the slippery slope. Calling for genocide is hateful. But is using words like “Third World” and “Indian” hateful? Is it hateful to use the wrong pronouns? Is it hateful to allow a prominent member of the Federalist Society to speak on campus? The campus hard-left thinks so. Where’s the line that we might cross from clearly hateful things to ideas or expressions that some just don’t like or which aren’t sufficiently politically correct? I’m proudly out of fashion these days in that I’m for erring on the side of freedom of expression.

So, I actually don’t fault the three Ivy League presidents for their equivocal responses to a question, set up to be a trap from hard-right Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, about whether or not calls for the genocide of Jews violated their campuses’ codes against bullying and harassment. Many felt that the answer should have been, “yes”, as opposed to the lengthy ifs, buts and maybes that they meandered around in.

But, in truth, I appreciated those answers. College presidents should struggle with the question of when speech should be quelled, condemned or discouraged. In my view, we should err on the side of freedom of expression, even when it is hard speech, hurtful speech and even hateful speech. I have real second thoughts about hate speech laws because they seek to punish ideas, no matter how distasteful. Just as some are Second Amendment absolutists, I wouldn’t call myself an absolutist for the First Amendment (I recognize limits for libel, slander, plotting to overthrow the government or committing other crimes), but I’d go pretty far in that direction.

Here’s the gist of what all three presidents said, as stated by Harvard President Claudine Gay when asked if anti-semitic rhetoric constituted harassment under Harvard’s code of conduct. Dr. Gay replied, “It can be, depending on the context. Antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.”

I actually think that’s the right answer. We don’t punish speech, we punish actions. The problem comes when you try to imagine Gay saying that if the question had been about anti-trans rhetoric, for example.

So, the problem for me wasn’t the presidents’ answers, it was their hypocrisy. Elite institutions have hardly been bastions of First Amendment freedoms in recent years. A leftist hyper-sensitivity has taken over. Speech codes make it taboo, if not subject to sanctions, to, for example, not use gender-neutral pronouns. Not referring to a single person as “they” can get a professor in hot water. Calling for the leveling of Israel is suddenly protected free speech.

New York Times center-right columnist Bret Stephens got it right, I think, when he wrote last week: “The double standard is this: Colleges and universities that for years have been notably censorious when it comes to free speech seem to have suddenly discovered its virtues only now, when the speech in question tends to be especially hurtful to Jews.”

This comes down to just simple campus politics. Going back to when I was in school in the early 1980’s it’s been cool to be pro-Palestinian. My theory is that this goes to the very DNA of the hard-left. In that DNA nothing is more important than victimhood and nobody, in their view, is more victimized than the Palestinians. And, as a bonus, by criticizing Israel you also get to take shots at the United States. What’s not to love?

So, these presidents knew they’d have to go back to the quad and deal with whatever fallout their comments might engender. They were in a no-win situation. A simple “yes” answer could well ignite keffyeh-draped sit-ins and calls for their heads by leftist students and faculties. The answers they gave have resulted in calls for their heads from trustees, major donors and pols in both parties. And, in fact, Penn’s Liz Magill was sacked late last week.

I have two reactions. First, their answers were actually good. It’s just that they should apply the same support for free speech to things that the left doesn’t like. And second, this all may end up being a bad omen for free speech. Instead of doing what they should do, which is to allow for more speech, even when it’s upsetting, what’s likely to happen is that more speech will become subject to sanctions.

School board needs challengers. Incumbent Madison School Board members Savion Castro and Maia Pearson have announced that they’re running for reelection in April. I have deep concerns about the direction of this Board. So, I hope candidates will step forward to challenge them with a fresh and practical vision. You need only 100 signatures to get on the ballot and nomination papers can be circulated now through January 3rd.