Between Free Speech and a Hard Place

The president of the university faced a no-win situation. A controversial speaker had been invited to campus, alumni were in an uproar, members of the faculty were outraged, even local business leaders protested.

The university president responded with a fierce declaration of principle: “It is my view that as long as our students can be orderly about it they should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself and in which they are interested.”

The writer was Robert M. Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago. The year was 1932. The speaker invited to campus by a student group was the Communist candidate for president, viewed by many in that era as a national threat.

Controversial speakers have probably visited American campuses for as long as there have been campuses, and university officials faced with managing the situation have often reacted as Mr. Hutchins did, with a fervent defense of academia as a marketplace of ideas that must be kept unfettered.

Yet beyond agreement over the need to protect free speech, there are still no accepted standards for how college presidents should handle such divisive debates. If anything, the issue has grown murkier.

In the last two weeks alone, ugly spats over speech have erupted at the University of California at Irvine; at Stanford University; and at Columbia University.

At the University of California at Irvine, anger followed when the institution withdrew an offer to Erwin Chemerinsky, a prominent left-leaning law professor, to become dean of its new law school, and his political views were blamed; the offer was later restored when both conservative and liberal legal scholars objected.

When Stanford’s Hoover Institution offered a visiting fellowship to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, thousands of professors, students and alumni signed an online petition opposing the decision; the university’s president emphasized the free speech principles at stake, while other officials noted that the invitation was not from the university but from Hoover.

And last week, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran accepted an invitation to speak at Columbia, Lee Bollinger, the university president, was faced with the question of how to protect open discourse involving a leader who denies the existence of the Holocaust and calls for Israel’s destruction. Perhaps trying to make lemonade out of lemons, he gave a blistering quasi-introduction that began by defending free speech and ended with Mr. Bollinger’s wish that he had effectively expressed “revulsion at what you stand for.”

In the end, few people were happy with that solution. But few can offer alternatives that satisfy everyone.

Disinviting a speaker can trigger as much or more fury as the invitation itself. And lofty defenses of free speech can sound cowardly to critics who believe the university’s choice of speakers is ideologically biased or that a particular speaker is uniquely evil and should be denied a public platform.

What magic formula could possibly satisfy a constituency that includes students, faculty, alumni and the community — as well as trustees and the big donors universities rely on so greatly these days?

Technology broadens the audience for such events, providing a way to rally the opposition even in the planning stages. (The Stanford petition against Mr. Rumsfeld exists online and began circulating even before students and many faculty were on campus for the fall semester.)

“It is incredibly complicated and difficult,” Mr. Bollinger said in an interview, one of many he gave to defend his combative stance during his introduction of Mr. Ahmadinejad. “And I think there are always strong incentives to withdraw from public discussion. My strong view is that that does and will impoverish public debate.”

Managing such controversies was hardly easier in the past. Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, recalled protests during the Vietnam War era when the students did more than sign virtual petitions or hand out fliers to object to speakers.

One time, Mr. Bok recalled, Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor and a Harvard Law School professor, was drowned out while moderating a discussion.

“He had tears in his eyes because the principle was very important,” Mr. Bok said, adding, “It was a repudiation of all the best that universities stood for. I still remember his huge distress.” ...

This from the New York Times. Cartoon by Joel Pett of the Herald-Leader.

Free Speech wins

Kentucky School News and Commentary posted a story recently about hundreds of Stanford University protesters who objected to the addition of Donald Rumsfeld to the University's conservative Hoover Institute, which also claims Condoleeza Rice and Eric "money won't make our schools better but it sure affords me a better lifestyle" Hanushek as members.

The argument is essentially that Donald Rumsfeld is a politician and a liar and should therefore be denied any "voice" that might influence others.

Countering this argument is Chris Holt, writing for the Stanford Daily.

...I propose that Donald Rumsfeld become the new Dean of Students. Liberals have questioned placing a politician in our academic environment, but I can tell you that I’ve been surrounded by nothing but academics at this university; that just proves we’re not really committed to diversity.

In contrast, while many conservatives point to the educational value of Rumsfeld’s experience, anyone who is familiar with his interviews over the last few months knows he doesn’t remember anything. Rather, we need his innate administrative skill...

...He’d also be a big supporter of the administration. Why, he’s renowned for his loyalty to governing bodies. No matter how controversial the decision, Dean Rumsfeld would put up a good front...If the University accepted money from a donor who sought to...erect a large gym without showers, Rummy would stand by the administration’s decision...He’d reassure us with things like, “It’s complicated” and “hard work.”

...Some students have expressed cynicism at the appointment of Rumsfeld. They suggest that Rummy would not be likely to engage students in an active debate, and, instead, his very presence seems to implicitly support numerous war crimes and one of the least popular administrations in recorded history. Many claim that even conservatives consider him the embodiment of failed policy and a blight on their party.

While the Hoover Institute is a separate body, these students assert that his selection is an embarrassment to the greater campus community and an insult to the innumerable soldiers and civilians that have lost their lives in Iraq.

To these foes, I can only reply: you go to school with the ethics you have, not with the ethics you want.

On the other side of the country Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial appearance at Columbia University brought out protesters saying he should not be permitted to speak.

The argument is essentially that Ahmadinejad is a politician and a liar and should therefore be denied any "voice" that might influence others. As Newsday reported:

[His] controversial appearance at Columbia University yesterday began with harsh, combative words from protesters, politicians and even the university president - who introduced the hard-line leader to a packed auditorium as "a petty and cruel dictator" with "a fanatical mindset."

"Today, I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," Columbia University president Lee Bollinger said in a stinging rebuke of Ahmadinejad that also defended the university's decision to invite him to speak. "We do not honor the dishonorable when we open our forums to their voices."

Combative and engaging, Ahmadinejad was quick to respond, contending that Bollinger's introduction contained "many insults and claims that were incorrect" and that the audience should be allowed to draw its own conclusions after hearing him speak.

That's the way it is with free speech. It exists to protect the speech we don't want to hear. It matters less where the lies come from. It matter much more, that American democracy is buttressed by an educated public that can think for itself and see through the lies - regardless their source.