BY JOHN K. WILSON
In the vast pantheon of loathsome lackeys serving Donald Trump, Sean Spicer is still a star figure. His obsequious devotion to Trump and indifference to the truth reached legendary status. This week, Spicer begins his $125,000 stint on “Dancing With the Stars” where everyone expects his stumbling on the dance floor to match his competence at answering questions honestly.
Last week, Spicer spoke at Northeastern Illinois State University along with Donna Brazile, despite protests from hundreds of students and faculty who called for Spicer to be banned. The lecture series, run by the administration and funded by a private donor, paid the two speakers a total of $50,000 for the event. On September 12, the event was held amid various protests.
I can understand some of the objections to Spicer. It’s dubious for a public university to subsidize Spicer’s sleazy stupidity with vast sums of money. There are many thoughtful conservatives out there who, unlike Spicer, have achieved far more than being willing to tell any lie ordered by Donald Trump. The problem with hiring professional liars to speak is that a university’s goal of truth-telling is rarely served. It’s like asking a machine that dispenses inaccurate press releases to teach you philosophy.
But once a university invites a speaker, no matter how awful, it should not disinvite them no matter what the controversy. Academic freedom is certainly imperiled when universities decide to disinvite or unhire people with controversial views.
And the arguments at NEIU used to justify disinviting Spicer and banning him from campus threaten free speech for everyone: “We implore you to withdraw this invitation because Sean Spicer—and his boss, Donald Trump—do not uphold NEIU’s strategic values. In particular, their actions have caused and enabled great violence and terror to the communities that our students come from..” This does not make sense as a reason to censor someone even though it invokes the word “violence.” Policies certainly cause harm, but they are not the same as violence. We need to allow people to debate policies, even if we disagree with those conclusions and think they are harmful.
The letter then elucidates all of the ways that Spicer fails to meet the university’s strategic values, including integrity, excellence, diversity, and community. Values are ideals for the university to strive for, not rules to punish or ban those deemed to fall short of them in some vague sense. What if the university decided that protesters are not following the strategic community values of “Inclusion” and “mutual respect” by seeking to keep out Spicer, and therefore they must be punished or banned from speaking?
One of the major flaws in NEIU’s strategic values is that they completely ignore freedom, which ought to be a core value of any university. But even these flawed values from NEIU do not demand adherence to them as a condition of being allowed to speak on campus.
NEIU is currently on the AAUP’s List of Censored Administrations for violating academic freedom. Instead of fruitlessly trying to ban offensive speakers, NEIU students and faculty ought to be pushing for actual reforms at NEIU that will protect academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the right to protest on campus. They should use this as an opportunity to say that if Spicer’s free speech is protected, so too must be the free speech of students and faculty.
The letter concludes that it is “an affront to humanity to host Spicer at NEIU.” No, it’s an affront to humanity that people like Trump and Spicer hold positions of power. But speaking on a college campus isn’t an affront to humanity, nor a threat to anyone. And seeking to ban Spicer will only help keep Trump in power by promoting the false impression that conservatives are the oppressed minority today. Whether you are moved by the ideals of academic freedom or the pragmatic necessity to remove Trump and his flunkies from power, you should oppose the efforts to ban Sean Spicer.
Policies ARE the same as violence when that is what they seek and that is what they produce. The trouble with unlimited obeisance to the principle of free speech is the failure to acknowledge the possibility of limits. If a student plagiarizes a paper and I flunk him, am I violating his free speech? Is he free to cheat without repercussions, in other words? No, at least hypothetically, because that person is violating the requirements of academic achievement. When it comes to telling lies and inciting violence, there is indeed a relationship between violation and violence. An administration that violates the most basic rudiments of truth not to mention law and constitutionality is committing violence against its citizens. At what point do the citizens get to say the university stands for something different from, greater than, free speech to the highest bid?
Some clarification is needed here. “The university” did not hire Spicer. Some subset of the university did so, and a significant portion of those affected protested, who can also be considered “the university,” perhaps with greater legitimacy. Further, “censorship” is a misleading description of what happened here. Spicer remains free to lie as often and however he wishes. NEIU has merely withdrawn their offer to pay him handsomely for doing so. A quick check of any dictionary will clarify that this is not what “censorship” means.
NEIU did not withdraw their offer to pay him to speak, he has spoken and will be paid. But the idea that a public university would decide to withdraw an offer to speak is, indeed, a form of censorship. Merriam-Webster says, “to suppress or delete as objectionable,” which is certainly what opponents used. The administration was asked to disinvite Spicer.
Someone’s bias is showing to say the least, unless this is strictly polemical. In either case, I was surprised to read it. It neither serves the writer’s interests or thesis (which is somewhat difficult to discern), nor displays the comportment expected of a university professor. Moreover, it is materially in deviation from fact. I would recommend removing it. I would otherwise ask two questions: 1. Free speech notwithstanding, Is such personally hostile, arguably libelous language necessary? 2. What impression would this create on parents, ones spending, say at the University of Chicago, upwards of $80K per year on tuition, only to see reinforced again, an unfortunate if not mendacious irrationality informing the pedagogic environment of a classroom by the Academy? Is this what we pay for? I’ll chalk this one up, based on the post date/time, on a late-night social hour. Otherwise, lending ambivalently a Comment equity to this post, may I cite an article I wrote for the students and faculty at the University of Chicago, after a student there, made similar comments on Spicer (although for somewhat different reasons) and was invited thereby on Fox News: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/1/10/debate-without-defiance/. Regards.
It is a remarkable demonstration of our political divide that the comments on my piece can range from “it terrible that you don’t want to ban Spicer” to “it’s terrible that you dare to criticize Spicer.” Why is it biased to be criticize Spicer but unbiased to be indifferent toward him? Surely centrism is a kind of bias, too. Why is “comportment” (which here means not criticizing government officials) deemed to be the proper behavior of an academic, if I were one? Why should wealthy parents get to veto the ideas of professors? Is censorship what we pay for?
That is a clever spin but is not what I’m referring to. I generally applaud your free speech and your position on speaker policy and frankly all these political actors from either side or spectrum, and other professional speaker-agitators, are poor pedagogic choices, but that is another matter. I refer to your rather rabid adjectives used to frame your political prejudice (which it is in a pedagogy context–this is not your personal website I don’t believe) and whether those advance or serve such an important subject in the context of higher education and moreover if this is good role modeling for the academy or students regarding rational discourse or discovery. “Trump hysteria” is best left to hysterics and their psychiatrists. Regards.
I think we have very different conceptions of good role modeling for rational discourse in the academy. I believe that writers (and professors) should be honest, witty, opinionated, and speak as individuals. I reject the model of bland, non-political writing and teaching that sounds like it was composed by a committee and was carefully screened to remove all controversial content.
Thanks for the informative article. I heard an interview with him on NPR. He was expected to do and say exactly what Trump wanted. It sounded crazy!