Thank you for reading First Do No Harm. This post is public so feel free to share it. In this week’s New York Times Magazine, Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter makes an interesting, if not convincing, case for nearly unfettered free speech on college campuses. His main notion is that colleges and universities should be, first and foremost, places to encourage and exercise curiosity. Curiosity, he argues, should open minds to opposing or conflicting points of view, leading to dialogue and reflection, not polarization and censorship. In such an environment, he claims, much of today’s campus turbulence would be moot - or at least muted.
Steve, I was struck by this: "I told him that graduation was not his platform and that freedom of expression was not a relevant argument. The commencement ceremony was for all students and their families, many of whom would be - might be - uncomfortable or offended." I agree with your decision but immediately thought of Colin Kaepernick and the NFL's "dime." I have long supported the taking of the knee, the raising of the fist, but when I read and agreed with your decision, I felt the discomfort of what may well be my hypocrisy. Is there a difference between offensive political lyrics and offensive political gestures if they are both considered speech? You succeeded in making me curious about my own stance. (I certainly couldn't agree with you more about the bludgeoning of curiosity in our schools--including most of those that call themselves progressive--and, I would add, our colleges.)
This whole debate has come up in the context of pro-Palestinian rallies on campuses, which universities have tried to shut down because, as you say, it's "political". Yet none of those universities have shut down any pro-Israel rallies. So the message is opposing genocide is "political" but supporting it is just the American way, I guess.
Steve, I was struck by this: "I told him that graduation was not his platform and that freedom of expression was not a relevant argument. The commencement ceremony was for all students and their families, many of whom would be - might be - uncomfortable or offended." I agree with your decision but immediately thought of Colin Kaepernick and the NFL's "dime." I have long supported the taking of the knee, the raising of the fist, but when I read and agreed with your decision, I felt the discomfort of what may well be my hypocrisy. Is there a difference between offensive political lyrics and offensive political gestures if they are both considered speech? You succeeded in making me curious about my own stance. (I certainly couldn't agree with you more about the bludgeoning of curiosity in our schools--including most of those that call themselves progressive--and, I would add, our colleges.)
This whole debate has come up in the context of pro-Palestinian rallies on campuses, which universities have tried to shut down because, as you say, it's "political". Yet none of those universities have shut down any pro-Israel rallies. So the message is opposing genocide is "political" but supporting it is just the American way, I guess.