Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech

by Keith E. Whittington

Why colleges and universities live or die by free speechFree speech is under attack at colleges and universities today, as critics on and off campus challenge the value of freewheeling debate. In Speak Freely, Keith Whittington argues that universities must protect and encourage vigorous free speech because it goes to the heart of their mission to foster freedom of thought, ideological diversity, and tolerance. Examining hot-button issues such as trigger warnings, safe spaces, hate speech, disruptive protests, speaker disinvitations, and the use of social media by faculty, Speak Freely describes the dangers of empowering campus censors to limit speech and enforce orthodoxy. It explains why universities must make space for voices from both the Left and Right. And it points out how better understanding why the university lives or dies by free speech can help guide students, faculty, administrators, and alumni when faced with unpopular, hateful, or dangerous speech. Timely and vitally important, Speak Freely shows why universities can succeed only by fostering more free speech, more free thought—and a greater tolerance for both.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Education

223 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 26, 2019

Reviews

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great introduction to issues of free speech, academic freedom, and the importance of these to the university setting. I appreciated the myriad examples given and the specific issues covered, including: trigger warnings, safe spaces, hate speech, shouting down of speakers, and the role of administrators.

I particularly liked the sections explaining how peaceful protestors of a speaker are also technically engaging in free speech that can be beneficial, and how this form of speech should also be protected within certain guidelines (though, completely obstructing an active speaker, preventing anyone else from hearing them, should not be protected).

It also explained well the concept of the “marketplace of ideas” and how we often have to compete for attention to have our ideas initially recognized, and must then back them up with argumentation and reasoning to have them stand up to further scrutiny and become more widely understood and accepted.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: A case for the vigorous defense of free speech as essential to fulfilling the mission of the university in the face of both institutional and outside attempts to suppress objectionable speech.

"Free speech on college campuses is perhaps under as great
a threat today as it has been in quite some time. We are not,
of course, on the verge of returning to the rigid conformity of
a century ago, but we are in danger of giving up on the hard won
freedoms of critical inquiry that have been wrested from
figures of authority over the course of a century."

So contends Keith E. Whittington in this rallying cry to defend free speech on university campuses. Whittington discusses the challenges to free speech arising from free-floating forms of calls for "trigger warnings and safe spaces," the cries to ban "hate speech" from public discourse, protests whose purpose is not dissenting from the speech of others but obstructing it, restraints or bans on student groups and outside speakers advocating objectionable ideas, and attacks on the academic and speech freedom of faculty.

His fundamental contention is that freedom of speech is essential to the mission of the university, which he defines as "producing and disseminating knowledge." Freedom of inquiry, rigorous discourse, disagreement and persuasion are all aspects of this process, and the protections of freedom of speech are essential for universities to flourish in this mission. A common element to both the mission of the university and a rigorous defense of free speech is a commitment to truth-seeking.

Having stated this contention, he surveys the development of a tradition of free speech over the last several centuries, both in its political expression tracing back to Jefferson and the refusal to permit authorities to define and censor "bad" speech and the philosophical tradition of John Stuart Mill upholding freedom of thought and conscience. He then considers the challenges to this freedom of speech, already noted above, including a number of recent instances in the last decade, notably the efforts to suppress Charles Murray from speaking at Middlebury College, and the injury to the faculty moderator that ensued. He also calls attention to the banning of religious groups who do not permit students to lead who do not share their beliefs, thus excluding the views of these groups from the public square.

In this last instance, I would have liked to seem a stronger recognition of how protecting the freedom of people with a particular viewpoint to associate is essential to sustaining their freedom to advocate that viewpoint, whether in line or at variance with the university orthodoxy. I would have liked a clearer connection to be drawn between the institutional forms of suppression of free speech that occur in universities, and efforts by students or outside groups to do the same, to which those same university leaders often object. In many instances, students are using the means at their disposal to restrict certain forms of speech, mirroring the more "refined" ways institutions suppress objectionable speech through policies, procedures, and pressures. Students are often simply doing what they have been taught.

Nevertheless, the author's contention is crucial that all forms of speech, short of speech that is directly threatening harm or incites violence, ought to be protected, and channeled toward real deliberation and persuasion. I saw an instance of this recently where a university president, under pressure to dis-invite a speaker who made some impolitic statements, refused to do so and invited students to engage the speaker with their questions about his statement, and also to set up other university-supported discussions countering the speaker's viewpoint. The president used this instance as a "teachable moment" of what it meant to live up to the school's "Code of Love and Honor" that includes these affirmations:


I respect... 
the dignity, rights, and property of others and their right to hold and express disparate beliefs.

I defend... 
the freedom of inquiry that is the heart of learning.

This, for me was an example of the personal and institutional backbone necessary to sustain the speech freedom Whittington, I think rightly, believes vital to the mission of our colleges and universities. Whittington notes that this may be costly, when controversial speakers make appearances. Equally, his book seems to me to be a cry for colleges and universities to examine their own culture, and how institutional efforts to censor objectionable or unpopular points of view undermine the very mission of higher education. If colleges and universities indeed believe that inquiry, rigorous discourse, persuasion through logical and reasoned discourse, and appeals to evidence are the stuff of truth-seeking, not just in higher education, but in a liberal democracy; then they should not only defend those who seek to "speak freely" but eschew any efforts to substitute institutional power plays for the deliberative truth-seeking that is supposedly at the heart of its mission.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Joelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was assigned as a Summer Read by my university. While it’s main argument is solid and oft repeated in public debates about Campus culture, it fails to offer an systemic explanation for the present moment and hard evidence to support The claimed prevalence of the problem. The debate over the state of speech on college campuses relies to heavily on politically charged anecdotes and fails to explain the how and why of student, faculty and administrator behaviors—-the incentive structure and threat structure in particular. This book fails on that front as well. Instead, it reads like one professor explaining his opinion of the state of affairs to other professors. That’s fine. But, that wasn’t the book I was hoping for.

[Yannis Karakozis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book became insanely repetitive from the very beginning without offering any interesting insights. I dropped it after 40 pages of reading it. I would give it a 1-star, but I give it a 2-star review simply because it might have something to offer in the pages I did not read.

[Jessica Toro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cheapest course I ever took! Makes me love reading and being able to have a professor to carry around! He really highlights the purpose of the University and when free speech can go too far and how it can be used effectively

[Sienna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely important and relevant book.

[Edith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A timely book that captures the current debate on free speech and its limits (if any), especially in a university setting. A lot of good arguments, but on the topic of hate speech and those that incite actual violence against a targeted group, I'm loathe to defend a lofty principle and the rights of those to utter it, against the actual people who must bear the cost of it. Second, while censorship is a problem and difficult to enact in the cases where it's called for, and can easily be abused, it is also unrealistic to rely on people using their critical faculties to discern truth from lies and falsehood, given the dismal state of our public education system today. It comes down to one's belief in the nature of people (do you believe most people can be trusted to use their critical thinking in dealing with the information they receive?), and the nature of government or institutions (can they be trusted to be diligent in stamping out hate speech and other harmful types of expression).

The author does make a point that provocateurs offer no real value aside from entertainment for their base, therefore have no place on campus, though they do have a right to their toxic speech outside. The last bit may be easy to say when one is not at risk of being targeted, but I wonder if the author and other defenders of near-absolute free speech would feel differently if these provocateurs' speech calls for a target on their backsides.

[Anthony J. Toumazatos · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise and eloquent defense of free speech principles, especially in relation to higher education. For anyone interested in issues pertaining to free speech this is a worthwhile start.

[Liusmiler323 · Rating 3 out of 5]

not so interesting, no new ideas, a lot of examples in the US.

[Claire · Rating 4 out of 5]

DISCLAIMER: I was required to read this as a pre-read before entering university.

Good enough read. Well-researched and well-spoken, but rather simplistic and dry writing. This may be because he needs to appeal to all of the incoming freshman class, but I wish it had been slightly more sophisticated in language. Also, pretty short! I feel like he could have gone into much better detail. I almost felt like I was reading a propaganda piece -- the writing was that structured. The entire book was clearly governed by rhetorical strategy. However, it's good that Whittington is writing about university free speech, and I ultimately found that at the end, I'd learned a lot of critical information.

[Daniel Te · Rating 3 out of 5]

I commend Princeton Professor Whittington for tackling this topic, because this is certainly quite controversial. I appreciate the amount of research he did into various incidents involving free speech and academic staff on college campuses. As for the book itself, I think it was reasonably argued, although not mind-blowing in any sense. Also, not that big of a deal, but he does take a few shots at Yale professors and students (I know Princeton and Yale have a rivalry, but a little much maybe?). Overall, it was just okay for me.

[Jayme · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’ve ever wondered what constitutes free speech or the mission of a university, this is a good book for you. The author gives a good “jumping off point” for discussion and thought.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This has been on my in-progress list for years -- felt like the right time to finally finish it! Overall, I think Whittington makes some good arguments for the fullest range of free speech on college campuses as possible, considering speaker invitations, academic freedom, ideological diversity, and student protest (making the book especially timely). He makes the case that the university's mission, always, is to produce and disseminate knowledge -- to seek the truth -- and that a university is only capable of doing so if it affords the greatest space for people to espouse, but more importantly, to hear alternative views. He advocates for policy making from a place of humility: We don't know the truth, so must be open to allowing others to make and defend arguments and then think about them, test them, and respond. He outlines the history of censorship, arguing that when censorship is allowed, it nearly always benefits the powerful. A university, he says, should make students uncomfortable and we should never make policy to protect them. Grappling with dissenting voices, no matter how awful they are, is good, in his view. (And, of course, students should be able to protest, but they also should not be allowed to occupy buildings and disrupt learning.)

I agree with much here, but I do think he (maybe consciously) misses at least one point, or at least doesn't deal with it sufficiently to my taste, and that is that some speakers are motivated only to do harm, and are successful in it. He admits that surely words CAN hurt people, but comes down on the side of some sort of general good will -- we shouldn't invite those that are only provocateurs, he says, as we can do better than that (i.e., find someone serious to consider alternative ideas). (But, if we do invite them, they should get to speak.) The problem, of course, is that we're not all working under this general good will and so some pretty terrible people get invited to speak on campus, and some of them have messages that deny the very existence of some in the campus community. Ought we be required to allow that? Do we, as a community, still seek truth when knowingly inviting those who spout clear lies? Can we never say that some ideas are just not worthy of the university space? I know, once we go down the road of which ideas are "worthy," we're in trouble. But, I think it's hard to accept that every idea is useful to consider. The line between something we've called "political correctness" (i.e., taking some care with language to be inclusive) and the avoidance of unpopular positions might be worth drawing. It is obviously good to be inclusive of a variety of views, especially on a university campus, but is it fair to accept the damage some speakers cause by arguing that some in our community don't even have the right to exist or are somehow less than? Finally, Whittington seemingly argues that "the truth will out." That's a pretty lofty and probably unrealistic goal, isn't it? How will the truth find its way through given stark inequality of voice (resources)? And at what cost to those harmed? Some arguments just aren't worth having. (Ah, but which?)

[Roger Smitter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech might raise some noise around the coffee shops on campus. The author wants the profs to be the persons who will turn over what has happened in universities.

Early in the book, he says “My concern here is with a particulate problem on college campuses that is not new but is newly relevant.” (p.2) He says he will try to influence the issue and he makes it possible for a reader to understand a debate about what colleges and universities should be doing to students. (3)

In Chapter 1, “The Mission of a University,” he tells us the impact of education and lists well known names: From Edison and Frederick Douglas to Steve Jobs. A major theme shows up through the book is that college is NOT just for getting professional goals. Students should value the free inequity. The core value of college is to value the free inquiry, not indoctrination. Students should not be measured by wealth, breeding and sports. (21) The book has Betsy DeVoss to define education. (22)

Chapter 3, “Free Speech on Campus,” gives the core of the book. “There was a golden age on this topic.” (51) There’s a long piece on Hate Speech (78-79). And he says “Let us recall that the purpose and value of free speech within a university is its truth seeking function.” (99) He wants colleges to have debates about what colleges and universities should be providing to students.

In the fourth and last section, he says “…we should welcome controversies that test out ideas and speculations and help us discard those argument that are weak and build on those are proven strong. (164) In the final pages, he writes, “Conservatives are not the only targets of ideological purges in contemporary academia.” 170

Some readers may follow the ideas about what should be happening in higher education. Debates might be useful but must people in higher education know that the train has left for what colleges are doing. But it is very to have a debate based on this book.

[Kathleen O'Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book did a wonderful job of bringing history, philosophy, and legal scholarship to bear on current controversies in an informative and accessible way. The argument that the author offers for the purpose of a university is not a novel one (and he says as such), but it is an important argument clearly made in a timely and highly relevant way. While some episodes of more recent American history continue to remain highly salient for the general public, I fear we’re losing the insight of the lesson our new nation learned from the Alien and Sedition Acts, which is the common sense notion that you can’t have censorship without a censor and such censors are bound to be capricious, motivated by partisan considerations, and to have a chilling effect on all sorts of valuable speech and expression. The examples of breaches of respect for free speech on mainstream college campuses that the author documents are alarming. Perhaps the most striking involved actual faculty members at Wellesley College stating in a signed statement that Laura Kipnis’s speech there “imposed on the liberty” of students, faculty, and staff by simply expressing her ideas. It’s troubling to me that multiple people at a university that have gone into the academic profession display a spectacular misunderstanding of their professions. It is this measured understanding that the author seeks to help restore in this important book.

[Chris Vogt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very straightforward defense of the importance of free speech and inquiry. He links freedom to the overall mission and purpose of the university which is to produce and disseminate knowledge. For reviewers who say he hasn’t provided adequate evidence that there is a problem — how many instances and examples do you need? I found the book to be very even handed in terms of exposing the fact that both right and left pose threats to free speech in different ways. He also was careful not to sensationalize by noting in the last chapter that even though the cases discussed are alarming overall higher education is not in crisis and the problems are important but not out of control. Putting the present efforts at censorship and thought control into historical perspective was also helpful. This isn’t new but rather a new manifestation of something that has been happening for a long time. His epistemology is a bit too simple and the idea that the university is only about production and dissemination of knowledge overlooks a lot of other elements of university life. Nevertheless this is one of the best recent books I’ve read on this topic. More thoughtful and nuanced than most.

[Lance Cahill · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent, if repetitive, overview of speech on campus and a defense of academic freedom and free speech as critical to the author’s view of the university as a search for truth. I feel as if the author struggled to get to a book-length treatment of the issue, but outweighed by his treatment of certain key items making its way into the news recently (safe spaces; trigger warnings; speaker cancellations). The author supports the view that speech outside of defined research and the classroom on matters of public importance deserve protection even when outside person’s area of expertise. Several examples are given, but some of the hard issues are shied away from - what if a professor denies the Holocaust in public forums but teaches the history in his course? Edge cases make for bad policy, but universities have to contemplate such cases.

I’d give this book to a student about to enter college (which seems to be the target audience based on reviews here).

3.5, rounded up to counteract other reviews.

[Ralphz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a well-reasoned, well-argued look at the battle for free speech at the university level, and how those schools have come up short time and again.

This is a big issue for conservatives right now but the author stays mostly neutral. He points out how the urge to censor speech has been around at universities for a long time, when liberal students found themselves targeted, too, in the Sixties and Seventies, and long before that.

He also addresses disinvitation of college speakers and the times that protest becomes counterproductive and disruptive for its own sake.

Universities should be bastions of all sorts of speech, even that with which we disagree. To refuse to listen someone speaking and sharing viewpoints you don't like is like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you." To shout someone down so no one can hear is to stick your fingers in everyone else's ears.

Let them speak, let me decide. University administrators need to grow a backbone and realize that the free exchange of ideas, not student "comfort," is the point of higher education.

This book was published in 2018. It seems things haven't gotten any better.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant, this is hard to swallow but absolutely necessary to heed. While he finally gets around to discussing the finances of free speech, he too easily glosses over the situation posed by the costs imposed by free speech. Sure, allow diverse speakers to speak on campus, but he lacked detail on how much those speakers might cost the campus and should all students be required to pay those costs. His primary answer, in the interests of free inquiry, would be, yes, everyone should share the costs. How well did that work out through the 20th century? The 21st? He'll need some more compelling arguments before that becomes a common solution.

[Rob Schmults · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Embracing free speech is easy if the speech never seems very challenging. It is easy to listen to pleasing ideas and affirmations of our own prior beliefs. It is much more difficult to learn to tolerate those with whom we disagree and who espouse ideas we find preposterous, repugnant, or even dangerous....(but) it is through controversy that we can make progress, often in the most unexpected ways.”

Personally I learned much more in school from people with different ideas and points of view from mine. Important book on an important topic.

[Robert Kraybill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise and compelling argument for why universities must recommit themselves to the fundamental value of free speech on campus. Many of the insights of the book are applicable to the debate about free speech in other contexts as well.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read, timely subject

[Corrinne · Rating 3 out of 5]

important topic, gets a little repetitive at times. could use more argument and less examples, but convincing nonetheless.

[Hannah Yetter · Rating 3 out of 5]

read for a poli sci class

[Jim Gise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Preach brother