As someone who works in a university public relations office, I appreciate your thoughtful approach, including how one statement creates an expectation for another...and another...and..., as well as the fact that "neutrality" usually still benefits one side over another.
My only challenge would be that our office's existence doesn't necessarily beget more statements - we are often the ones counseling against making them, for many of the reasons you describe. We've created guidelines to try and bring consistency to what the university (and schools and departments) do or don't comment on, but even universities that ascribe to the Kalven Committee's report have ended up making statements on some issues.
This has been an active topic of discussion in our field over the last few years. There's been a shift in student and faculty expectations that results in more pressure today for statements than when I entered this field in the 2000s. That may well continue, especially if the 2024 election goes a particular way (early 2017 saw demands for statements almost every week.) However, I do sense a growing statement fatigue, which may be accelerated by the blowback following essentially any statement on the war in Israel and Gaza.
My hope is we get to a more reasonable equilibrium. There is a role for universities to play in civil society - such as standing up for democratic values when there are insurrections, I'd argue - but if we comment on everything we end up saying nothing.
Universities have further complicated their situation because over the last decade they have not merely espoused an official position on pretty much every issue of greater or lesser political significance, but they have more and more hewed to the idea that there is only one acceptable moral position on each issue and that people who stray from that orthodoxy may be begrudgingly tolerated, but they do not represent legitimate dissent. On racial disparities and the amelioration thereof, on gay rights and transgender issues, on abortion, on law enforcement, universities have ceased to stand for scholarly debate and having instead declared that there is one and only one acceptable belief.
This was intellectually absurd but politically tenable so long as the universities' stakeholders were in broad agreement. They are not in broad agreement about Israel.
The elephant in the room is the question of whether a university's comments are genuinely objective or whether they mirror the beliefs of its largest donors. I'd like to believe all discussion is done in the spirit of legitimate argument and discourse, but I'd be naiive if I actually did.
> Punishment can be take the form of actual official censorship, like suspending or firing someone for their speech
Moment of pedantry: the given examples are not acts of censorship; they are retaliation. Censorship would be something like stripping a column from a campus newsletter, removing substantive content from an open letter before publication, or similar. This is not to make any comment on the rightness or wrongness of the actions in question; I'm just saying it's important to be correct about what sort of actions they are in evaluating them.
This has been a problem for decades (if not longer). Medicines San Frontieres (MSF) was created, in part, because the Red Cross had a policy of not commenting on abuses by the forces in the Nigeria/Biafra conflict in the late 60s- "we are just here to render aid, not comment" Doctors felt that the conduct was so outrageous that it must be commented on, so they split off to form MSF.
So a policy of strict "no comment, we're neutral on that" (e.g. Kalven) can break down. I suppose when it comes to a university having actual physical harm, they have to step in and say "that action was wrong", but it's hard to separate "that action" from the motivation for the action. (Hate the sin, not the sinner?).
And it's even stickier when it comes to employers - Not so much "is it legal" (your employer can fire you for wearing green socks), but the whole "we expect your not at work behavior to not reflect poorly on us" - and that's really getting harder with social media. 40 years ago, when your commentary would take the form of a strongly worded letter to the Editor - it's unlikely any of the customers would see it - and your supervisor would get told by the big boss (talk to that guy and tell him to simmer down).
From what I read MSF mainly comments on the medical situation though and what happens there. They may make claims related to protection of life but they don't go too far and create extensive political positions.
I appreciate your perspective, as far as it goes. The gap that seems unaddressed is that university’s are physical places where people are vulnerable.
I am nonplussed by the prohamas rhetoric that has proliferated, but the trucks doxing students on campus created a circumstance where people were in physical danger. Even if it wasn’t eminent, if one of those students had been attacked we would be having a very different conversation, no?
I come from an LGBTQ+ background, and when it comes to trans people, for instance, who are PAYING CUSTOMERS, if their teacher deadnames them in class at a community college in a red state... they’ve just painted a target on that person. That person has a valid reason to feel afraid in class, which compromises their learning, which wasn’t offered for free. The consumer of that professors knowledge has a reasonable expectation that it will be delivered in measured and respectful style.
To bring these meandering musings to a close, I recently learned that some 55% of professors have parents with PhDs. I notice that the “community of scholars” is becoming sclerotic and inbred. Maybe the whole thing needs to be rethought root and branch.
Your emphasis on “Paying Customers” seems odd, though--why wouldn’t said trans student have the same expectation/right to respectful treatment if they were a scholarship student, or indeed if they were in a free to attend, taxpayer funded institution?
I’m just digging at the “community of scholars” ethos. They get paid, it’s a job, and all of the other jobs have to show paying customers basic human respect or they’d get fired. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a boss coming down on an employee for being shitty to a customer, and that’s what such a professor as I described has done.
I don’t mean to imply anything about how the financing comes together. A grocery clerk needs to have good manners whether the customer pays with cash or credit, and a professor in a classroom needs to show the same basic customer service skills.
This tension between business and scholarship is at the heart of a lot of conflict on university campuses. Football programs, building new facilities at great expense, tenure, admissions, discipline. So many of these issues come down to whether the student is a customer or an apprentice scholar. Hell, even grad student benefits and pay.
Universities might be a lot better off if they weren't so schizophrenic about their own images and mission.
First, a constitutional quibble. When the discussion gets technical, I try to avoid the word "censorship" except in its First Amendment sense, which in this case, would apply to public universities engaging in 1A defined censorship.
That said, inculcating said ethos won't be easy. The baseline premise of social media is a Warholian 15 minutes of fame on steroids and Einsteinian time dilation.
That said, on Twitter, I don't use anything close to a real name.
Excellent - I was thinking of that law student who lost her offer while reading your post:
“This law firm doesn’t tell clients what their values should be, it seeks to advocate for them vigorously and competently”
I think a future member of a law firm can be evaluated on judgment, discretion, and knowing either how to sound reasonable when expressing something controversial, or knowing to keep quiet about it. Hers was not a display of competent advocacy.
As usual, Ken does an excellent job of exposing the complexities of free speech issues. The various ethoses he brings up apply equally to democracy writ large as they do to institutions that exist within such societies. Democracy necessarily requires a great deal of effort.
I'm just imagining the older sibling texting the younger sibling "did you see what DAD wrote about you in his newsletter?" The shade being thrown there is amazing.
Well, I can’t take credit - that’s Homer, as translated by (I think) Butcher. Joe Abercrombie paraphrased in his book title as “the blade itself [incites to violence].”
Controversies like the one we are in are a tinderbox because these are issues that we don’t often think about on a day to day basis. But when they do pop up, you needed a well thought out position yesterday. To further compound the matter, emotions are so high that people cannot listen to engage in conversation. Speakers also tend to choose inflammatory language to unite their cause and to affect what language is seen as acceptable. The only way to win is to be in a situation where no one cares what you have to say.
I think your solution of neutrality is fine. But it is better for institutions to define their values and think about how a (unfortunately) predictable controversy meshes with your values, and that you communicate that with your employees and students.
Put differently, is the issue that people are being fired from their jobs (or universities are being uneven) or is it that the relevant constituencies did not have notice that their jobs or speech could cause this reaction. I think the former is a problem. But if the former is inevitable, then at least give people the latter option.
I think that in most cases, employees have “notice” in some form. Look at the controversy about the guy at NYU. NYU has very, very clear policies, and they actually sent the guy a letter or email reminding him of it, multiple times.
I confess I don't really follow the Holocaust/Prophet logic. I thought the idea was that denying the Holocaust is rabble-rousing for the Nazis Are OK crowd, not that it insults Jews.
Some European nations have strong anti-hate speech laws that are enforced and enacted somewhat selectively. Holocaust denial, for example, is banned speech in many European states, former British Commonwealth countries, Russia, and a few others.
European Muslims pointed to various hate speech laws, including those around Holocaust denial, and claimed that the law afforded special carve outs for things like depicting the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons. States with those laws couldn't claim a law against specific types of hateful or bigoted speech couldn't be banned because states already had those laws on the books.
I think the main point is that passing targeted rules or laws "just this one time" isn't a great solution unless someone is willing to make a lot of specific exceptions. Further, "just this one time for me, but not for you" isn't equitable, and free speech requires some basis of equality to function.
Yeah, but “you may not deny a well-documented historical atrocity” and “you may not mock a specific religious figure” are totally different in kind and that difference is obvious from even a second’s thought.
Probably smart to look at the actual language of some of these laws. Some are definitely *just* about the Nazis/ the Holocaust/general genocide denial; others, like Germany's, cover more ground:
"(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years."
Not really sure stupid racist cartoons qualify as “capable of disturbing the public peace” or that insulting a religious figure necessarily qualifies as “insulting a national, racial, religious group”, but I will admit that that at least sounds like a question for the courts… or at least that it would be in a common law system; idk much about Civil Law.
What if the problem isn't "stupid racist cartoons" but instead "depictions of a person which are generally considered sacrilegious to adherents of a major religion...that are also stupid racist cartoons"?
I’m pretty sure Germany has at least de facto separation of church and state and therefore the state simply isn’t in the business of protecting people from encountering sacrilege or blasphemy.
You find me a European country that banned art that was sacrilegious to Christians (or at least was perceived to be by a large portion of the population, a la Piss Christ) during the same time period and we’ll have something to discuss.
It's a good example of how you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, so take the position that helps you sleep at night. A University is going to be criticized for taking the position isn't shouldn't criticize or ban. A law firm is going to be criticized for defending or litigating on behalf of a controversial client. I agree that the best path for both of them is to have as much of an ethos of neutrality as possible, but people are people, and the statement "If you're not with us, you're against us" has been around since people first started gathering together to throw rocks at each other. So, create a plan outside of crisis, stick to it as best as possible in crisis, and then when you're out of crisis again review the plan and message to see if it served you best in crisis. And try to sleep well at night as a University President or Law Partner.
As someone who works in a university public relations office, I appreciate your thoughtful approach, including how one statement creates an expectation for another...and another...and..., as well as the fact that "neutrality" usually still benefits one side over another.
My only challenge would be that our office's existence doesn't necessarily beget more statements - we are often the ones counseling against making them, for many of the reasons you describe. We've created guidelines to try and bring consistency to what the university (and schools and departments) do or don't comment on, but even universities that ascribe to the Kalven Committee's report have ended up making statements on some issues.
This has been an active topic of discussion in our field over the last few years. There's been a shift in student and faculty expectations that results in more pressure today for statements than when I entered this field in the 2000s. That may well continue, especially if the 2024 election goes a particular way (early 2017 saw demands for statements almost every week.) However, I do sense a growing statement fatigue, which may be accelerated by the blowback following essentially any statement on the war in Israel and Gaza.
My hope is we get to a more reasonable equilibrium. There is a role for universities to play in civil society - such as standing up for democratic values when there are insurrections, I'd argue - but if we comment on everything we end up saying nothing.
> No easy answers today. Sorry. Fresh out.
That's a great line. I'm gonna use it for casual conversation and/or my epitaph.
Universities have further complicated their situation because over the last decade they have not merely espoused an official position on pretty much every issue of greater or lesser political significance, but they have more and more hewed to the idea that there is only one acceptable moral position on each issue and that people who stray from that orthodoxy may be begrudgingly tolerated, but they do not represent legitimate dissent. On racial disparities and the amelioration thereof, on gay rights and transgender issues, on abortion, on law enforcement, universities have ceased to stand for scholarly debate and having instead declared that there is one and only one acceptable belief.
This was intellectually absurd but politically tenable so long as the universities' stakeholders were in broad agreement. They are not in broad agreement about Israel.
It's a circular firing squad.
The elephant in the room is the question of whether a university's comments are genuinely objective or whether they mirror the beliefs of its largest donors. I'd like to believe all discussion is done in the spirit of legitimate argument and discourse, but I'd be naiive if I actually did.
This becomes more and more of a problem as universities depend less on tuition and more on donors (including hyperpoliticized legislatures).
If only
> Punishment can be take the form of actual official censorship, like suspending or firing someone for their speech
Moment of pedantry: the given examples are not acts of censorship; they are retaliation. Censorship would be something like stripping a column from a campus newsletter, removing substantive content from an open letter before publication, or similar. This is not to make any comment on the rightness or wrongness of the actions in question; I'm just saying it's important to be correct about what sort of actions they are in evaluating them.
This has been a problem for decades (if not longer). Medicines San Frontieres (MSF) was created, in part, because the Red Cross had a policy of not commenting on abuses by the forces in the Nigeria/Biafra conflict in the late 60s- "we are just here to render aid, not comment" Doctors felt that the conduct was so outrageous that it must be commented on, so they split off to form MSF.
So a policy of strict "no comment, we're neutral on that" (e.g. Kalven) can break down. I suppose when it comes to a university having actual physical harm, they have to step in and say "that action was wrong", but it's hard to separate "that action" from the motivation for the action. (Hate the sin, not the sinner?).
And it's even stickier when it comes to employers - Not so much "is it legal" (your employer can fire you for wearing green socks), but the whole "we expect your not at work behavior to not reflect poorly on us" - and that's really getting harder with social media. 40 years ago, when your commentary would take the form of a strongly worded letter to the Editor - it's unlikely any of the customers would see it - and your supervisor would get told by the big boss (talk to that guy and tell him to simmer down).
From what I read MSF mainly comments on the medical situation though and what happens there. They may make claims related to protection of life but they don't go too far and create extensive political positions.
Yes, MSF would become unwelcome if seen as political.
I appreciate your perspective, as far as it goes. The gap that seems unaddressed is that university’s are physical places where people are vulnerable.
I am nonplussed by the prohamas rhetoric that has proliferated, but the trucks doxing students on campus created a circumstance where people were in physical danger. Even if it wasn’t eminent, if one of those students had been attacked we would be having a very different conversation, no?
I come from an LGBTQ+ background, and when it comes to trans people, for instance, who are PAYING CUSTOMERS, if their teacher deadnames them in class at a community college in a red state... they’ve just painted a target on that person. That person has a valid reason to feel afraid in class, which compromises their learning, which wasn’t offered for free. The consumer of that professors knowledge has a reasonable expectation that it will be delivered in measured and respectful style.
To bring these meandering musings to a close, I recently learned that some 55% of professors have parents with PhDs. I notice that the “community of scholars” is becoming sclerotic and inbred. Maybe the whole thing needs to be rethought root and branch.
I think these points are good illustrations of why the “university’s mission” is difficult to define narrowly.
Your emphasis on “Paying Customers” seems odd, though--why wouldn’t said trans student have the same expectation/right to respectful treatment if they were a scholarship student, or indeed if they were in a free to attend, taxpayer funded institution?
I’m just digging at the “community of scholars” ethos. They get paid, it’s a job, and all of the other jobs have to show paying customers basic human respect or they’d get fired. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a boss coming down on an employee for being shitty to a customer, and that’s what such a professor as I described has done.
I don’t mean to imply anything about how the financing comes together. A grocery clerk needs to have good manners whether the customer pays with cash or credit, and a professor in a classroom needs to show the same basic customer service skills.
This tension between business and scholarship is at the heart of a lot of conflict on university campuses. Football programs, building new facilities at great expense, tenure, admissions, discipline. So many of these issues come down to whether the student is a customer or an apprentice scholar. Hell, even grad student benefits and pay.
Universities might be a lot better off if they weren't so schizophrenic about their own images and mission.
I was relieved that you didn’t have a solution. I find know why. I had a belly laugh about your son. Brilliant writing.
Uh, what makes you think that was Ken's son? My first thought was that the offender was Kid3.
All three kids have terrible OpSec, but I’m not spilling which one it was.
This makes me wonder if the delightful imagery of terrible OpSec was a collage of mistakes made by all three.
Well put overall.
First, a constitutional quibble. When the discussion gets technical, I try to avoid the word "censorship" except in its First Amendment sense, which in this case, would apply to public universities engaging in 1A defined censorship.
That said, inculcating said ethos won't be easy. The baseline premise of social media is a Warholian 15 minutes of fame on steroids and Einsteinian time dilation.
That said, on Twitter, I don't use anything close to a real name.
Excellent - I was thinking of that law student who lost her offer while reading your post:
“This law firm doesn’t tell clients what their values should be, it seeks to advocate for them vigorously and competently”
I think a future member of a law firm can be evaluated on judgment, discretion, and knowing either how to sound reasonable when expressing something controversial, or knowing to keep quiet about it. Hers was not a display of competent advocacy.
As usual, Ken does an excellent job of exposing the complexities of free speech issues. The various ethoses he brings up apply equally to democracy writ large as they do to institutions that exist within such societies. Democracy necessarily requires a great deal of effort.
I'm just imagining the older sibling texting the younger sibling "did you see what DAD wrote about you in his newsletter?" The shade being thrown there is amazing.
“Iron itself draws a man to use it” is an incredible bit of writing.
Well, I can’t take credit - that’s Homer, as translated by (I think) Butcher. Joe Abercrombie paraphrased in his book title as “the blade itself [incites to violence].”
I blame Google’s declining quality for me not knowing that.
Controversies like the one we are in are a tinderbox because these are issues that we don’t often think about on a day to day basis. But when they do pop up, you needed a well thought out position yesterday. To further compound the matter, emotions are so high that people cannot listen to engage in conversation. Speakers also tend to choose inflammatory language to unite their cause and to affect what language is seen as acceptable. The only way to win is to be in a situation where no one cares what you have to say.
I think your solution of neutrality is fine. But it is better for institutions to define their values and think about how a (unfortunately) predictable controversy meshes with your values, and that you communicate that with your employees and students.
Put differently, is the issue that people are being fired from their jobs (or universities are being uneven) or is it that the relevant constituencies did not have notice that their jobs or speech could cause this reaction. I think the former is a problem. But if the former is inevitable, then at least give people the latter option.
I think that in most cases, employees have “notice” in some form. Look at the controversy about the guy at NYU. NYU has very, very clear policies, and they actually sent the guy a letter or email reminding him of it, multiple times.
I confess I don't really follow the Holocaust/Prophet logic. I thought the idea was that denying the Holocaust is rabble-rousing for the Nazis Are OK crowd, not that it insults Jews.
Some European nations have strong anti-hate speech laws that are enforced and enacted somewhat selectively. Holocaust denial, for example, is banned speech in many European states, former British Commonwealth countries, Russia, and a few others.
European Muslims pointed to various hate speech laws, including those around Holocaust denial, and claimed that the law afforded special carve outs for things like depicting the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons. States with those laws couldn't claim a law against specific types of hateful or bigoted speech couldn't be banned because states already had those laws on the books.
I think the main point is that passing targeted rules or laws "just this one time" isn't a great solution unless someone is willing to make a lot of specific exceptions. Further, "just this one time for me, but not for you" isn't equitable, and free speech requires some basis of equality to function.
Yeah, but “you may not deny a well-documented historical atrocity” and “you may not mock a specific religious figure” are totally different in kind and that difference is obvious from even a second’s thought.
Probably smart to look at the actual language of some of these laws. Some are definitely *just* about the Nazis/ the Holocaust/general genocide denial; others, like Germany's, cover more ground:
"(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years."
Not really sure stupid racist cartoons qualify as “capable of disturbing the public peace” or that insulting a religious figure necessarily qualifies as “insulting a national, racial, religious group”, but I will admit that that at least sounds like a question for the courts… or at least that it would be in a common law system; idk much about Civil Law.
What if the problem isn't "stupid racist cartoons" but instead "depictions of a person which are generally considered sacrilegious to adherents of a major religion...that are also stupid racist cartoons"?
I’m pretty sure Germany has at least de facto separation of church and state and therefore the state simply isn’t in the business of protecting people from encountering sacrilege or blasphemy.
You find me a European country that banned art that was sacrilegious to Christians (or at least was perceived to be by a large portion of the population, a la Piss Christ) during the same time period and we’ll have something to discuss.
Well, then, portraying the Prophet is rabble-rousing for the Islamophobia Is OK crowd. Purely semantics
The producers of Charlie Hebdo might beg to differ.
That has nothing to do with my point, unless you're trying to dismiss it with "OoooooOoOoOh but Muslims are ScAaAaAaArY!!!"
It's a good example of how you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, so take the position that helps you sleep at night. A University is going to be criticized for taking the position isn't shouldn't criticize or ban. A law firm is going to be criticized for defending or litigating on behalf of a controversial client. I agree that the best path for both of them is to have as much of an ethos of neutrality as possible, but people are people, and the statement "If you're not with us, you're against us" has been around since people first started gathering together to throw rocks at each other. So, create a plan outside of crisis, stick to it as best as possible in crisis, and then when you're out of crisis again review the plan and message to see if it served you best in crisis. And try to sleep well at night as a University President or Law Partner.