U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Public domain]
My colleague on this blog, and one of its founding editors, John K. Wilson, objects to my advocacy of gatekeeping at colleges and universities on free-speech grounds. A decade ago, I would have agreed with him. Now, I do not. Wilson has been consistent; I have not.
Part of this is that we come to questions of gatekeeping from differing perspectives, he from university practices and responsibilities and I from social-media and journalistic practices and responsibilities. In a comment on my post on this topic, Wilson writes:
I reduce gatekeeping to the [college or university] administration banning people they don’t like because that seems to be what happens. What are the rules you think should apply to banning speakers? What are the speakers you want banned, and why? And how exactly would it improve the intellectual life of a campus if you ban these speakers?
His questions hit the core of the problem we are facing now as alt-right forces and others dedicated to disrupting higher-education comfort press institutions to sanction (by their presence on campus) their beings.
My answers stem from what I have learned as a student of the evolution of social media and the history of journalism. The concern is not new. In 1731, Benjamin Franklin published an “Apology for Printers.” I wrote about it in “The Citizen journalist as Gatekeeper: A Critical Evolution,” an anthology chapter published in 2009:
Franklin tried to divorce responsibility for the act of printing from responsibility for content. He failed: “I my self have constantly refused to print any thing that might countenance Vice, or promote Immorality; tho’ by complying in such Cases with the corrupt Taste of the Majority, I might have got much money.” By refusing to relinquish all control over content, he maintained control over all content. Franklin argued that no middle route could be safely or effectively trod, for the place of that route between “hands off” and “hands on” is extraordinarily subjective.”
This is what Wilson understands, and it lies beneath his advocacy of unrestricted free speech on college and university campuses. My own concerns about his position (and mine, once) stems from the growing impact of manipulative presences using free speech dishonestly to further their own ends. I wrote:
In addition to the concerns raised by Franklin of balancing the public’s need for information against “community standards,” thee contemporary gatekeeper has to deal with questions o motivation. Are there hidden agendas—political, commercial or otherwise…? Like questions of “community standards,” this cannot be answered through skills training in information sorting, vetting and ranking.
In the past, I tried to wall my concerns from what happens on campus, but the rise of nefarious actors online to the point of crisis has spilled over into other areas of the public sphere, affecting our elections and what goes on behind college and university walls. Over the past year, I have come to realize that I was creating an artificial divide, just the sort I have often argued against, and was abetting just the sort of presence on campus that I lament online.
The question, in both cases, is what to do. And debate over that will have an impact on the future of the United States. Can we maintain our republic in the face of people willing to manipulate trusts (such as freedom of speech) in the face of actions by people unwilling to accept the responsibility behind that trust?
We are seeing, even this week, a controversy over the showing of a video, one that uses the excuse of “satire” to cover provocation and that hides under the cloak of the First Amendment. Many Americans feel flummoxed in the face of such things and unsure of how to respond, for respect for the right of Freedom of Speech is embedded deeply within us. Unfortunately, this often leads to lack of response to this and other examples of abuse of the right that are tearing us apart.
The questions Wilson raised in response to my post are important and debate over them needs to continue:
What are the rules you think should apply to banning speakers? Speaking strictly of campus rules, I think we need to apply them separately to two kinds of extra-curricular events on campus. One of these, political rallies, doesn’t impinge upon educational activities or mimic them, so should be considered differently and, generally speaking, allowed unambiguously. Unfortunately, there need to be limits even here. Rallies of groups which have called for violence at any point, for example, should not be allowed, but the latitude, here, should be broader than for events that style themselves as lectures or other events aping traditional institutionally created proceedings. An event on campus that cloaks a speaker in metaphoric professorial garb needs to be examined much more closely, just as institutions monitor the actions of faculty.
In both cases, on-campus events do need to be monitored, but not exclusively by administration (though administration does bear the burden of enforcement). In the latter, just as faculty are required to meet certain standards in hiring, reappointment, promotion and tenure, outside speakers should be vetted: an invitation by a campus group should never be quite enough. A small committee of faculty would be best able to do this, with the specific task of evaluating the intent of the event, not just qualifications of the speaker. If it seems like it is more of a political event than an academic one, as the recent “question-and-answer” session featuring Dick Cheney at Beloit College, it should be rejected, for it tries to use the academic imprimatur for political ends. If the organizers wanted to present it as a rally and not an academic event, the decision might be different and different facilities might be offered.
This would not be a banning of anyone, but a protection of the institution’s prerogative to determine what is presented as “academic” under its name.
What are the speakers you want banned, and why? As I don’t want to ban anyone, and recognize that there are plenty of alternative venues for anyone who wants to put forward their views, I am a little uncomfortable with Wilson’s assumption that gatekeeping is tantamount to “banning.” The institutions need to be willing to evaluate the intentions of the proposed event (a subjective determination, certainly, and one many administrators and faculty shy away from), refusing to host any where the purpose is disruption, not education. Each college and university needs to be willing to stand behind its decision, stating clearly why any rejected event is deemed inappropriate for campus hosting.
And how exactly would it improve the intellectual life of a campus if you ban these speakers? A speaker whose purpose is to disrupt campus life should never be endorsed through invitation to campus. Again, this isn’t a ban—I don’t invite anyone to my house who might wreck it but I am not banning them—but is a refusal to be a venue for actions or ideas anathema to the basic principles of the institution.
The dilemma, as Franklin found, is that no college or university, just like no printer, can act simply as a pass-through, hosting or presenting every individual or idea. Anyone abetting the presentation of anything to any group in public has to be aware that they are going to be associated with the presentation, whether they endorse it specifically or not.
We already accept that freedom of speech has limits. What we are debating here is where those limits are, physically, not the banning of any particular person or idea.
This debate, mirrors greater discussions going on in American society, from national borders on down. Who do we allow in, and why? The answers are not going to come easily but, if we talk, come they will.
I want to respond to some of Aaron’s statements here:
“If it seems like it is more of a political event than an academic one, as the recent ‘question-and-answer’ session featuring Dick Cheney at Beloit College, it should be rejected, for it tries to use the academic imprimatur for political ends.” I am astonished that you are actually advocating a ban on “political” speech on college campuses. I completely reject this elitist notion that academics are so special that no one other than academics should be allowed on college campuses lest they steal our precious “academic imprimatur.” No, speaking at a college campus never “cloaks a speaker in metaphoric professorial garb” and even if it did, so what? This notion of professors clutching their garb to protect themselves from competing speakers is bizarre. Once again, what is the harm to anyone in allowing Dick Cheney to speak?
“The dilemma, as Franklin found, is that no college or university, just like no printer, can act simply as a pass-through, hosting or presenting every individual or idea.” Of course they can, and should. In fact most printers do exactly that, and should. Franklin was a political activist who became his own printer in order to express himself and avoid censorship. But unless everyone starts their own college, the only way to protect the freedom of professors and students is to have colleges that don’t censor. Or we can follow the model of China, where printers are routinely censored by the government, https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2019/02/26/126017/increased-chinese-government-censorship-causes-printing-delays/
“refusing to host any where the purpose is disruption, not education.” Beyond the fact that it’s impossible to predict that an event has the purpose of “disruption” rather than education, “disruption” is a standard that would probably be used to target progressive activists.
“Rallies of groups which have called for violence at any point, for example, should not be allowed,” Really? So any speaker or group who has ever endorsed the idea of “punch a Nazi” should be permanently banned from all colleges? Anybody who ever endorsed a war anywhere is barred?
“This debate, mirrors greater discussions going on in American society, from national borders on down. Who do we allow in, and why?” The answer should be, any invited to a university as a speaker, scholar, or student should not be banned–not by the administration, not by the faculty, not by a mob, not by the government. A university should never build a wall.
First of all, I do wish you would stop using “ban.” It changes the nature of the conversation by taking it in an obfuscating, not clarifying direction. To claim I am advocating a “ban” is putting words in my mouth that I have not used and is suggesting I am advocating something that I am not. To claim that I am for permanently banning anything, as you do, is close to dishonest. If you are going to talk about what I say, don’t change it but respond to it. Not inviting someone in is not the same as banning them.
What is the harm of allowing Cheney to speak? It lowers the reputation of the college. It makes acceptance of attitudes that led to the deaths of thousands easier to bring about. It dilutes the concept of “education.”
And you are wrong about printers. Read the whole of Franklin’s “Apology” and you might understand. He was responding to accusations that he endorsed the sentiments of a handbill he had printed for a shipping concern looking for passengers excluding certain people. Printers always have rejected jobs they find not meeting community standards. By the way, I grew up as a printer and know from experience that you are completely wrong about them, then and now (though few remain). Printers reject jobs and always have.
Your absolutism, John, while admirable, is misplaced in a world that is manipulating your attitudes in order to destroy the community gatekeeping we all rely on simply to exist in the basic configuration that has supported our lives thus far. You are becoming a pawn to the alt-right by not recognizing that all societies rely on gatekeeping, as do all institutions. Your libertarian proclivities may sound good in the abstract, but they only work within gates where you are already protected, whether you like it or not, from forces the wider society has deemed dangerous.
We can help change what is considered necessarily kept at bay, and we should. But we cannot remove the fact of the barriers that surround us.
“What is the harm of allowing Cheney to speak? It lowers the reputation of the college. It makes acceptance of attitudes that led to the deaths of thousands easier to bring about. It dilutes the concept of “education.” And that is your highly prejudiced opinion, which is exactly the point. Who’s to make these judgement calls on what is appropriate for students to hear. A claque of students appointed by a collection of progressive professors, like you? Then, of course, the precious snowflakes now called students, will never hear any perspective that varies from the orthodoxy of the left. Sounds like the imposition of group think that Orwell talked about in “1984”. I’m guessing you disapprove of Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria. Would he be allowed to speak on your campus under your rules?
Cheney, and even Trump, should be allowed to speak at a rally on campus. But in a putative academic context? I would say no, unless they are adding to academic discussion, a decision on which should be made by academics.
And you might want to read Orwell a little more carefully….
Oh, and I’d suggest you read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/15/real-threat-free-speech-campus-isnt-coming-left/?fbclid=IwAR1LW5sn3kr8iHjvalDgUvDPEeIQDMP_zP_5mJ4GnQc-zsxu51F7DJowRl4
This seems to me deeply problematic, for a number of reasons. Let us start with the obvious point. If you are going to ban (from an academic event on campus) a Q&A with Dick Cheney (former VP of the US), presumably (in order to avoid charges of political bias) you would also ban a Q&A with Barack Obama (former POTUS) – even though my guess is that on a left-leaning campus, inviting President Obama to speak would attract no protests, and indeed would be highly desired by many. And you would also ban from similar events every former senator and congressman of BOTH parties (wouldn’t you?). Because I was rather struck by the fact that all the examples of potentially bannable (from an academic event) speakers that you give are right-wing ones.
So could you please confirm that you would advocate banning from speaking at academic events on campus liberal politicians as well as conservative ones? When in October 2014 President Obama (while he was still President) gave a lecture on the economy to the School of Management at Northwestern University, you opposed it, yes, because it was an academic event, and yet he was delivering a partisan viewpoint at it? Or was that prior to your “conversion” – you supported it then, but you now think you were wrong to do so, and the School of Management at Northwestern was wrong to invite President Obama to speak. Is that correct?
Or is your criterion in the nature, not of the event, but of the inviters – it would be fine if the Department of Politics at Beloit had invited VP Cheney, but not for a student group to do so, even though the actual content of the event might well have been identical? And equally, if a student group invited a Democrat, you would oppose it. A random example: a couple of years ago at Stanford former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had a Q&A session on immigration, in an event hosted by a number of student groups. You think Stanford should have banned that event, yes, since it was a quasi-academic one (albeit student-sponsored), not a political rally?
Second, you seem to have overlooked that even a partisan account of events from a former politician is academically extremely interesting and revealing to those who study politics. For that very reason it has been commonplace for decades to invite retired politicians to campus, even in the recognition that their versions of events are likely to be self-serving. It is academically useful to hear from politicians about their experiences, and doubly so if (as happened with VP Cheney) the opportunity. VP Cheney was at the heart of political decision-making for 8 years (more, if one includes his earlier career). His very presence as a speaker describing that career contributes to our understanding.
Again, “ban” is the wrong word to be using. To not invite someone is not the same as banning them. Also, I find nothing wrong with political events on campus but I do not think they should masquerade as academic events.
The Cheney event at Beloit included no academics. And I would dispute that there was any academic purpose to his visit. If it were held without academic pretension, I would have no problem with it. We are seeing something of the same thing today with Trump at Benedict College.
The problem is that people are deliberately conflating university presence with academic value. That’s being done (again, deliberately) to make people believe that certain visitors have intellectual weight and that they are being kept off campus out of fear of their ideas.
You are evading the questions I asked. Which LEFT-WING politicians would you ban from – sorry, “not invite to” – campuses to participate in analogous events to Dick Cheney’s at Beloit. I gave two more or less random examples: President Obama at Northwestern in 2014 (definite academic pretensions, since it was an address to an academic school, no actual academics included in the event, except as audience members), Antonio Villaraigosa at Stanford in 2017 (ditto). Both of these were as academic (or un-academic) as VP Cheney’s at Beloit. Can you please confirm that you think that these invitations should not have been issued, under the principles you have articulated here? Or is it only conservative politicians and ex-politicians who are not worthy participants in academic discourse?
And you also did not address the point I made about how, for people who study politics, hearing from a politician is itself of academic value.
We have two types of events here, and they get conflated, one academic and one political. These need separating, and that means, in particular, keeping the political from masquerading as the academic. No one with any sense would claim Trump’s appearance at Benedict College had any academic rationale. The problem arises when political events pretend to the academic. No sitting president visits a campus for an academic reason. Institutions like to bask in the glow of such an event but I think it would bee a serious mistake for them to seriously characterize the visits as “academic” in any nature. The same is pretty much true for any active politician. For someone not in office, like Cheney or Villaraigosa, the question is somewhat different. If they are invited for clearly academic reasons by a campus group or even individual with clear academic intent, so be it. I have invited several prominent rightwing figures to visit my classroom, but I want them to come without fanfare. Probably for that reason, none has taken me up on it.
What I find problematic is the creation of something that looks academic hosted on the campus of an academic institution for political reasons, as the Cheney/Walker event certainly was.
If a political-science professor, or a non-partisan group on campus, invites a politician to campus, fine. But it should be done with the stipulation that the event is for a specific academic purpose, one well defined, and in a particular academic setting. When there begins to be a circus-like atmosphere, the academic begins to recede, the political taking over. and this needs to be avoided Thus, care needs to be taken with invitations to controversial figures, the institution engaging both advocates and opponents beforehand so that an event of academic value, and not simply of distraction, ensues. This is difficult, but it can be done, and the process itself can show that the interest is academic, not political.
I think “ban” is the only accurate term to describe an institution disinviting a speaker invited by a student group. And I worry that the reputation of a college is deemed to justify a ban, since that could easily apply to any faculty or students who hold controversial ideas (or who criticize the administration). Our wider society is much more likely to deem the ideas of leftist critics to be dangerous than the thoughts of Dick Cheney, even if you might disagree. I don’t think refusing to censor the alt right makes me a pawn to them; to the contrary, what the alt right desires is to be banned so that they can wallow in the rhetoric of victimization. And we can help remove the fact of censorship by opposing it rather than endorsing it.
John, I don’t think you are really that naive. The alt-right waits for us to use the word “ban” so that its members can twist what we are saying to meet their goals–which include the real banning of free speech. In their strategies, they show that they understand Humpty Dumpty, apparently, better than we do: “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'” I see your definition of “ban” as just that self-serving and opening the door for further misuse–as is your use of the word “censorship.” You are being used as an entryway by the alt-right. (The Hanlon article I link to in another comment shows one way this is working.)
I also don’t think you are as naive as Mark Zuckerberg. Siva Vaidhyanathan wrote scathingly yesterday about the Facebook founder’s simplistic vision of free speech, concluding with this: “We have let the institutions that foster discussion among well informed, differently-minded people crumble. Soon all we will have left is Facebook. Look at Myanmar to see how well that works.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/18/mark-zuckerberg-free-speech-21st-century?fbclid=IwAR27wCyXCBT-G09DqNDPI966tcIYiu-hBoR-6_T7waIteFdY-ynXBInbGd4
Though, again, you are not as unlearned as Zuckerberg, you might want to follow the link above.
Vaidhyanathan also writes, “The problem of the 21st century is cacophony. Too many people are yelling at the same time. Attentions fracture. Passions erupt. Facts crumble. It’s increasingly hard to deliberate deeply about complex crucial issues with an informed public. We have access to more knowledge yet we can’t think and talk like adults about serious things.” Freedom of speech is not the simple dichotomy you seem to propose. It rests on a complex web of gatekeeping. When that falters or becomes opaque, freedom of speech falls victim to its foes.
What we are coming to, by abrogating our gatekeeping responsibilities, is a situation where we can’t respond to aggressive twisting of assumptions and truth like this small example from Philip Sargent above: “And that is your highly prejudiced opinion, which is exactly the point. Who’s to make these judgement calls on what is appropriate for students to hear. A claque of students appointed by a collection of progressive professors, like you? Then, of course, the precious snowflakes now called students, will never hear any perspective that varies from the orthodoxy of the left.” That’s cacophony, not an honest attempt at debate and, though I do think Sargent should have a right to say it, the words have no place in intellectual discussion. The situation, it should be obvious, is no simple one; questions of gatekeeping are complex but they should not be avoided. We have been too willing for too long to twist our hats in the face of statements such as Sargent’s, often on mistaken free-speech grounds. Instead, we should be calling them out as the nonsense they are.
If Sargent wants to hold a rally on campus, particularly a public-university campus, go ahead. Would I support allowing views like those expressed in the lines above to be part of something purporting to be furthering education? No. No more than I would invite in a flat-earther or a Holocaust denier.
It should be clear: questions of free speech are only reduced to either/or at our peril. The situation of speech is complex; it always has been. There have always been limits to speech and there have to be, as Franklin realized so long ago. The questions should be where the line is, who gets to determine it, whether the determination is open, and why it is made. The answers to these should be formalized in law and sustained by tradition. For the past centuries, they have been, in the United States (though with a continuing and necessary evolution), but the laws can’t handle contemporary means of communication and the traditions are falling apart.
Responding by saying “we must have free speech for all in all instances or we will have it in none” only plays into the arms of those who would have none. We need, instead, a serious discussion on how to move forward, not one reducing the question to black and white.