Since Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, the world has been convulsed by the carnage emanating from the Middle East.That convulsion has migrated to the United States, where it is expressed daily in protests, demands, threats, and moral-grandstanding often reeking of dehumanizing language.
The carnage has claimed the lives of thousands in Gaza and Israel.It has also claimed other kinds of victims in the United States. This includes three college presidents, whose December 5, 2023, testimony before the Education and Workforce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives brought them instant public infamy because of the way that they positioned themselves in regard to speech.
Debates over free speech have deeply immersed themselves into the fabric of our culture over the past few years. Wild and sharp finger-pointing has gone in both directions.
A Cornell University junior accused of posting violently threatening statements against Jewish people on campus was held without bail. While we take some measure of relief in knowing that the alleged author of the vile anti-Semitic posts that threatened our Jewish community is in custody, it was disturbing to learn that he was a Cornell student, Cornell President Martha E. Pollack said in a message to the university community.
On college campuses, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian student groups are weighing in online and in person, with many of their statements and protests provoking strong reactions from the other side.
For the past two years I have been writing a series of columns about the complicated intersection of inclusive diversity and robust speech. Although my last column appeared just two months ago, in some respects it seems like ancient history.Maybe it is.
Because on Memorial Day, May 25, 2020, a Minneapolis Police Officer named Derek Chauvin jammed his knee against the neck of George Floyd, an African American man, for eight minutes and forty-six seconds, until Floyd was dead.Those 526 excruciating seconds, recorded and widely disseminated, may have changed the course of U.S. history.That incident has certainly changed the way that we are currently talking about race in particular and about diversity in general.
Leelee Jackson and Geoffrey Stone are hardly household names in diversity circles. But in 2019, my interactions with Jackson, a talented young playwright, and Stone, a passionate defender of free speech, helped illuminate the challenging complexities of diversity and expression.
As a fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, I have been examining the myriad tensions created when two laudable principles collide: the defense of robust speech and the effort to create greater inclusivity. This intersection has generated considerable controversy, including among diversity advocates.
In my first column in this series, I began a discussion of the intersection of diversity and speech. This has grown out of my research as a current fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Let me expand upon those ideas.
–
The basic point is this: in the United States, free speech does not really exist. It is an inspiring metaphor, but not an actual reality. Unfortunately, the term has been overused. Today people throw “free speech” around in a helter skelter manner. Too often the term serves as an all-purpose knee-jerk response to diversity advocates when they raise issues of inequitable and non-inclusive language. At times it can short-circuit serious diversity discussions.
Our nation’s speech system is far too complex to be captured by those two words, “free speech.”
“That’s against free speech.” “That’s censorship.”
“That’s unconstitutional.”
Those are the kinds of responses diversity advocates are likely to receive when they challenge hate speech or other forms of demeaning and marginalizing expression. Unfortunately, diversity supporters often take the bait and respond by arguing for the importance of limiting free speech. But they shouldn’t go down that road. They don’t have to challenge free speech because free speech doesn’t actually exist. Let me explain.
