BY MARCO ABEL AND JULIA SCHLECK
In our recent Academe article, “Academic Freedom, Radical Hospitality, and the Necessity of Counterspeech,” we revisit the incident on UNL’s campus that led to its censure last June to ask what administrations can do when faced with incidents like this one, in which a student advocating for the establishment of the far right-wing group TPUSA was confronted with a vigorous (and profane) counter-protester. Once publicized by national right-wing media outlets allied with TPUSA, the encounter quickly became the basis for a flood of complaints, calls for firing, and vicious threats of violence against the counterprotester, a doctoral student employed as a part-time teacher at the university. This followed the pattern of targeted faculty harassment that has become all too common across the country in the last several years. Our article surveys administrative responses to such incidents, and provides an intellectual basis for a response that pushes back against exclusionary speech and ideas while still respecting free speech.
Universities have seemingly conflicting commitments to academic freedom and to inclusivity, often both explicitly enshrined in their stated missions and values. Higher education is premised on the need for free inquiry in research, the freedom to communicate such research to students, and the unrestrained articulation of ideas (even and especially unpopular or unexpected ones). But as educational institutions they are also committed to providing a positive learning environment as an equally necessary part of providing and obtaining a university education. Universities cannot accomplish their educational mission if they permit an environment made hostile by speech and actions that are fundamentally designed to harass and exclude certain targeted groups. These two values are being ever more frequently brought into conflict by events like those at UNL. How can university officials balance their commitment to both in their handling of such conflicts?
We begin to answer this question by insisting that there should be no false equivalency between values that differ in kind. The rhetoric of “both-sidesism,” in which opposing opinions must always be given equal weight within the community, should be challenged by and within universities. As members of an institution of higher education, it decidedly is our business to make such a challenge and to invite the challenging of every dogma, especially dogma that forecloses inclusion and limits diversity—actions and speech acts that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, fascist, or intolerant of religious difference. In such cases, only one side is correct, and we must insist that any speech act that is designed to undermine the foundational principles of higher education is not welcome. Following Derrida’s concept of radical hospitality, we argue that as hosts, universities have the duty to welcome all through its gates, but also the constitutive right to exclude the promotion of certain ideas from that welcome. The right to express exclusionary ideas is not in question—such speech is still “free”—but not all speech should be welcomed by the host. When exclusionary ideas are asserted on campus, presidents, chancellors, deans, and chairs must exercise the right of the host to counterspeech, reiterating the university’s educational values and rejecting those that attack those values.
In short, we make the case that academic institutions and units should clearly state in public-facing statements their commitment to the principles of academic freedom and inclusion. They must embrace their position as host and, when confronted with organizations or speech acts that deny or undermine that position, embrace the responsibility of counterspeech that this position implies. When faculty or students are attacked, it is not enough to affirm their right to free speech or academic freedom. We must forcefully speak against the actions and positions of those who would seek to undermine our shared values as educators.
Guest blogger Marco Abel is professor of English and film studies and chair of the Department of English at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and Julia Schleck is associate professor of English at UNL and a member of the AAUP’s Committee on College and University Governance.
Articles from the current and past issues of Academe are available online. AAUP members receive a subscription to the magazine, available both by mail and as a downloadable PDF, as a benefit of membership.
This is well-written, and certainly fair-minded. I would disagree, however, on the more fundamental assumption both writers apparently sustain: that the modern university has an inherent contractual duty to serve upon its constituents a corporate legal code of compliance (effectively an ex-ante warrant) and otherwise, morally intervene in campus behaviors that do not create a cause of action in various civil or common laws of obligations. In the University of Chicago’s case, where I have more intimate reference, its Articles were so over-reaching that they themselves were Constitutional violations in ex post facto law; in tortious interference and in other legal deficiencies, including coerced submission to an adjudication gag. It was so flawed in fact that it would never survive even a motion for summary judgment, or on appeal. An opinion I wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year on this matter, may be of interest otherwise, as it outlines another complication: Title VI of the CRA which has become effectively “weaponized” by the previous Administration (including its “Dear Colleague” university campaign). Few in the academy appreciate the extent of special interest identity campus agitation from the previous 2-term executive office, whose experiences were nearly exclusively contained in higher education institutionalism (and opportunism). Thank you and Regards. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-government-and-free-speech-on-campus-1510000926
I’m a little confused by the last sentence, which seems to give an unearned status to ‘shared’ values. On plenty of occasions, members of higher education communities have almost universally shared values which they should have felt a duty to challenge.