We dare defend our rights! That is the
Alabama state motto. That is also what the UA Student Senate said to
the UA Faculty Senate and Administration when it unanimously passed a
resolution fearlessly defending UA students’ inalienable human
and civil right to free speech on Feb. 24, 2005.
In an act of gross overreaction to an
incident involving alleged anti-gay comments by a comedian on campus,
the University of Alabama Faculty Senate passed a Resolution claiming
that The University of Alabama “has a
duty reflected both in law and in standards of civility to control
behavior which demeans or reduces an individual based on group
affiliation or personal characteristics, or which promotes hate or
discrimination, in all formal programs and activities.” Such a
broadly-worded statement clearly opens the way for the University to
adopt a speech code that would violate the civil rights of UA
students.
The wrong-headedness of this approach
to dealing with even legitimate hate speech should be obvious to any
American. The best and only truly effective way to combat bad speech
is with good speech. Ultimately, only good ideas can fight and
defeat bad ideas. Thomas Jefferson expressed this fact when he said
“Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it”.
The resolution goes on to advocate that
the University “develop clear policies restricting any behavior
which demeans or reduces an individual based on group affiliation or
personal characteristics, or which promotes hate or discrimination,
in any approved University program or activity.” Depending on
how broadly one interprets the phrase “any approved University
program or activity”, this proposal could severely limit the
freedom of speech of any student that the Administration or Faculty
arbitrarily deems to be engaging in “hate speech” or
“malicious aggression”.
In one of the most disturbing clauses
of the resolution, the Faculty Senate states that “while
freedom of speech should be less restricted in activities that are
not formally recognized or facilitated by the University, all members
of the University community and guests should be encouraged to behave
in a civil manner and to avoid any behavior which demeans or reduces
an individual based on group affiliation or personal characteristics
or which promotes hate or discrimination”. One can reasonably
infer from this that Faculty Senate believes that it has the
authority to regulate the speech of students not only in official
University activities but also in their private lives away from
campus.
Speech codes in various forms,
including that of harassment codes, have been part of American
college life for the last two decades. The main purpose of these
speech codes has been to suppress dissenting opinion, especially
conservative opinion critical of liberal and Leftist university
policies. Herbert Marcuse, a Marxist theorist, wrote a famous
article in the 1960's that advocated a “repressive tolerance”
that would repress the Right and tolerate only the Left. Why college
administrators and professors of all people would think that they had
the right to engage in this kind of totalitarian thought control is
beyond comprehension. These codes invariably are used to justify
“malicious aggression” against those who do not conform
to the narrow ideology of the campus Left. Labeling dissenters as
“haters” or “harassers” is a cowardly and
immoral way of avoiding real, substantive debate.
Free speech is absolutely vital to the
mission of any university, where new and often controversial ideas
must be discussed openly and rationally in order to make advances in
knowledge. Tolerance of views that one considers objectionable or
offensive is a necessary part of university life. As long as free
and open debate is allowed, everyone has the opportunity to defend
and promote his own views.
Academic freedom is the very heart of a
university, and freedom of expression is the very heart of academic
freedom. To infringe on that freedom is to tear the heart out of a
university.
The issue has struck a chord with
students of all races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, and
ideologies. Some feel censored. Some feel ignored. All feel that
their right to free speech is being violated in some way. Now is the
time to address these concerns.
While their collective heart may have
been in the right place, the collective mind of the UA Faculty Senate
certainly was not when they passed their resolution. They should
exercise academic leadership and admit that they made a mistake, then
rescind their resolution. That will be an act of courage and decency
that we can all admire.
