Free (and educated) speech
The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · October 10, 2007
We commend the Student Council's initiative in tackling the difficult yet significant issue of free speech at Hopkins. Their recently ratified resolution was correct in rejecting the University's vague and harmful policy of "Principles for Ensuring Equity, Civility and Respect for All." However, the Council's proclamation that "all ideas" merit protection does not go far enough in specifying the nuances of protecting and enshrining free speech and the expression of ideas.
The right to free speech guarantees the protection of ideas that we may find offensive or even morally abhorrent. It is particularly important that Hopkins upholds this right, for a university should be for a forum for open academic discourse that is not only allowed but encouraged. History is strewn with stories of once marginalized (and even offensive) ideas that have since become all but codified by mainstream academia.
Despite the obligation of the University to tolerate otherwise objectionable opinions, free speech rights in an academic environment are not unlimited. Slanderous or derogatory accusations that are unsubstantiated by the accepted standards of scientific or historical inquiry cannot be allowed. Those who abuse these academic standards should not face automatic censure but rather be permitted to express their ideas, which can then be rejected or marginalized by the academic community. As an educational institution with a history of pedagogical innovation, we must allow the necessary space for rigorous academic discourse, a much more effective remedy for offensive and unsubstantiated speech than mere policies of enforcement.
Free speech rights become murkier beyond the realm of academic discourse, where standards of legal and ethical speech are less clearly defined. Yet, here too there are standards that Hopkins must enforce in order to retain its integrity. Speech or actions that intentionally slander or disparage individuals or groups without justification cannot be tolerated. While we do believe that it is fundamentally important for educational institutions to enshrine minority opinions and the debates they provoke, we also believe it necessary to marginalize irresponsible and academically insupportable slander. Recent events involving the Sigma Chi fraternity and the conservative Carrollton Record, both of whom published libelous statements and, in the case of the Record, unauthorized photographs, demonstrate the necessity of marginalizing slanderous and unsubstantiated speech in what should otherwise be a free, transparent and rigorous academic discourse.
We hope the Council and administration will consider these nuances as they tackle the issue of free speech at Hopkins. In order to encourage the free expression of minority opinions, we must distinguish legitimate academic debate from slanderous and defamatory speech.