Opinions

“The President of Iran speaks at Columbia” Certainly a university inviting a head of state to speak on current events is well within its educational mission. But when the speaker is controversial, the question of an appropriate speech policy must arise. The Academic Policy Committee and the Committee on Faculty have recently reviewed a proposed new policy regulating how faculty invite speakers onto campus or into the classroom.

Much of the new policy is reasonable. The speech or event must have legitimate educational value. The event should not pose a physical risk to any members of our community, or disrupt classes. And given the recent IRS investigations into nonprofits involvement in political activity, we need to be very careful when the event might endorse a political candidate.

The proposed Events and Speakers policy has much to commend it, being based on the policy of Gonzaga University. It is largely faculty-regulated at the lowest level and emphasizes consultation.

Two items in the proposed speech policy, however, have rightly earned vigorous disagreement. One proposed criterion regulates a speaker who might “create a hostile learning environment”. The AAUP has explicitly addressed the “hostile environment” policy language in Section C of the 2007 Freedom in the Classroom statement:
…the current application of the idea of a "hostile learning environment" to the pedagogical context of higher education presupposes much more than blatant disrespect or harassment. It assumes that students have a right not to have their most cherished beliefs challenged. This assumption contradicts the central purpose of higher education, which is to challenge students to think hard about their own perspectives, whatever those might be. It is neither harassment nor discriminatory treatment of a student to hold up to close criticism an idea or viewpoint the student has posited or advanced. Ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended. Instruction cannot proceed in the atmosphere of fear that would be produced were a teacher to become subject to administrative sanction based upon the idiosyncratic reaction of one or more students.13 This would create a classroom environment inimical to the free and vigorous exchange of ideas necessary for teaching and learning in higher education. Further, the language speakers may use to challenge cherished beliefs must not be limited to polite and “reasoned academic discourse” that would not be viewed as “intimidation”

As another AAUP statement explains: Some may seek to defend a distinction between the regulation of the content of speech and the regulation of the manner (or style) of speech. We find this distinction untenable in practice because offensive style or opprobrious phrases may in fact have been chosen precisely for their expressive power. …The line between substance and style is thus too uncertain to sustain the pressure that will inevitably be brought to bear upon disciplinary rules that attempt to regulate speech.

The second problematic section of the proposed speaker policy regulates speech that might “present a challenge to the University’s core values and mission as an Augustinian institution by advocating positions or actions contrary to Catholic teaching.” Clearly, the University is Augustinian and should celebrate its heritage and mission. In addition to being Augustinian, however, we are a university, and thus have a special role in critiquing and nuancing at all levels, most especially within our unique heritage and area of Catholic expertise. Just because a speaker advocates a particularly dubious position does not mean that the community will not benefit from hearing the “devil’s advocate” (the Church recently abolished the formal office of Devil’s Advocate, but that office has a long history within the Church.) Balance comes not from a formal juxtaposition of opposing speakers but from the studied reflection of the community on the speaker’s challenge.

So I challenge the Academic Policy Committee to endorse the AAUP recommendation to concentrate on behavior not speech:
Institutions should adopt and invoke a range of measures that penalize conduct and behavior, rather than speech—such as rules against defacing property, physical intimidation or harassment, or disruption of campus activities. All members of the campus community should be made aware of such rules, and administrators should be ready to use them in preference to speech-directed sanctions.

Then the community as a whole should vigorously debate how an Events and Speaker Policy should properly reflect our core values as an Augustinian university. We will encounter veiled truths, sprawling unity, and demanding love, but in the end, the University will benefit from the debate.