According to the New York Times, Barnard College is in a big kerfuffle involving free speech, institutional neutrality, and academic freedom. The problem is that theyre conflating them all, so the campus is full of stress and argument that, with some good will, could be avoided. Here I proffer a simple solution to the Colleges woes. <\/p>\n
First, some terms. These are my takes, so others might disagree. Free speech is the ability to express yourself without censorship. The First Amendment protects your speech from being censored by the government, but not necessarily by anybody else, including your boss on the job. Public colleges and universities, however, must adhere to the courts construal of the First Amendment (theyre considered arms of the government), while private colleges need not. In my view, however, they should, for free speech is seen by many academics as the best way to get to the truth, with everybody able to discuss issues without being quashed. The University of Chicago, a private school, adheres to the First Amendment in our Principles of Free Expression, also known as the Chicago Principles, and these have been adopted by more than 100 colleges. <\/p>\n
In contrast, institutional neutrality in academia means that colleges and universities remain neutral on political, moral, or ideological issues, and make no official statements about them. (Faculty and students, of course, are welcomed to express their personal views.) Thus, at Chicago, which adheres to institutional neutrality, you will (or rather should) find no department or unit of the university making any kind of statement about politics or ideology on its websites. This is an adherence to our Kalven Principles (also see here), which allow exceptions to neutrality only when the issues at hand are intimately connected with the mission of the University. Sadly, only a few schools in the country, including Vanderbilt and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have officially adopted institutional neutrality, though I think all of them should. Thats because the purpose of Kalven is to not chill speech by avoiding intimidating people who want to speak up against positions that might be construed as official. Kalven and the Principles of Free Expression are designed to buttress each other. <\/p>\n
There is, of course, a difference between free speech and institutional neutrality. You can have free speech without institutional neutrality, so that individuals can speak their minds but departments and universities can also take official positions. (I cant imagine, however, having institutional neutrality without free speech, as the former makes sense only if you have the latter.) The problem with Barnard College, as outlined in the NYT article below (click to read), is that it has adopted free speech but isnt trying that hard to be institutionally neutral. And this is causing problems. <\/p>\n
As for academic freedom, thats usually construed as the freedom of academics to teach and do research on what they want without interference. In other words, it is a freedom of inquiry. This is somewhat connected with freedom of speech (can a professor say whatever she wants to in a classroom? Nope.), but its not the issue at hand today, though both Barnard and the ACLU are conflating freedom of speech with academic freedom and with institutional neutrality. If they adopted the Chicago Principles and Kalven, they wouldnt be in trouble. But there are lots of faculty who think that departmental websites, official emails, and other official venues should be able to express political opinions, and thats where they get in trouble. <\/p>\n
Click to read, though you may be paywalled: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
First, Barnard College (in New York City, affiliated with Columbia University) has adopted the Chicago Principles, and so has free speech (NYT text is indented). <\/p>\n
The Barnard faculty also held a vote in December affirming the Chicago Principles, a commitment to free expression, several professors said. <\/p>\n
Its in the institutional neutrality issue where they get balled up, because the professors cannot refrain from making political statements on official websites: <\/p>\n
Three weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, the Department of Womens, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College in New York posted a statement on itsdepartmental websitein support of the Palestinian people. <\/p>\n
Below the statement, the professors posted links to academic work supporting their view that the struggle of Palestinians against settler colonial war, occupation and apartheid was also a feminist issue. Two days later, they found that section of the webpage had been removed, without warning, by Barnard administrators. <\/p>\n
What happened next has sparked a crisis over academic freedom and free expression at Barnard at a time when the Israel-Hamas conflict has led to tense protests on American college campuses and heated discussions about what constitutes acceptable speech. <\/p>\n
Acceptable, however, means speech that can appear on departmental websites. The departmental statement was removed because, at least for this issue, Barnard was enforcing institutional neutrality, which is good. (The claim that the Hamas\/Israel war is a feminist issue is the way department always try to get around these restrictions. In fact, Id argue that if youre a feminist, youd want to support Israel, which doesnt oppress women or gays. But I digress.) <\/p>\n
Asked to explain why the page was removed, college administrators told the department that the statement and links were impermissible political speech,a statement from the department said. <\/p>\n
And if that applied to all official political, ideological, and moral issues, that would be great. Barnard would then be like the University of Chicago. The problem is that Barnard College seems to have taken it upon itself to judge whether some official political\/ideological speech is okay, and other speech isnt. And that puts them in the position of being, as W. said, The Decider. What speech is acceptable, and what is not. <\/p>\n
The Barnard administration then, in late October and November, rewrote its policies on political activity, website governance and campus events, giving itself wide latitude to decide what was and was not permissible political speech on campus, as well as final say over everything posted on Barnards website. <\/p>\n
And so we get stuff like this: <\/p>\n
At both Columbia and Barnard, an all-womens college that is formally part of Columbia University but has its own leadership and policies, administrators have asked the community to refrain from slogans and words that others may find hurtful. Both institutions have also issued reworded administrative rules that officially apply to everyone. But critics say that in reality, they are being used to curtail views the college does not want aired. <\/p>\n
Under new rules Barnard emailed to faculty on Nov. 6, for example, all academic departments must submit changes to the content of their websites to the Office of the Provost for review and approval. All content on the colleges website may be amended or removed without notice, arelated policystates. <\/p>\n
Arthur Eisenberg, executive counsel with the N.Y.C.L.U., said that the policy gives the administration discretion to determine what is permissible academic discourse on the website. And thats the problem, he said. <\/p>\n
While the pro-Palestinian statement was taken down, for example, astatementby the Africana Studies Department decrying anti-Black racism and state-sanctioned violence in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in 2020 was permitted to stay up. <\/p>\n
No hurtful speech? Trying to maintain a position like that is asking for trouble. <\/p>\n
At Chicago, statements about George Floyd, structural racism, state-sanctioned violence, and Black Lives matter on departmental websites was taken down, simply because these were political statements that had nothing to do with the mission of the departments who issued them or our University. <\/p>\n
And now the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is warning Barnard that institutional neutrality amounts to censorship, not realizing that it is intended to prevent chilling of ideas. The problem is when you are trying to draw lines between hate speech and other speech. Its best to just adopt Kalven and not permit any official speech on politics or ideology. <\/p>\n
Apparently, the NYCLU doesnt understand that, nor does it understand academic freedom: <\/p>\n
The moves caught the attention of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which wrotea letterto Barnards new president, Laura Rosenbury, in December, warning that the website and political speech policies violated fundamental free speech principles and were incompatible with a sound understanding of academic freedom. <\/p>\n
Such a regime will inevitably serve as a license for censorship, the letter said. <\/p>\n
In a statement, the Barnard administration said that it had barred college resources from being used for political activity for at least a decade. Another policy barring political signs from being posted on campus was not directed at any ideology, it contended. <\/p>\n
But the statement about George Floyd and state-sanctioned violence above is certainly a political statement. It would be barred here and, if Barnard adheres to its principles, it should be barred there. As for the ACLU defending academic freedom, thats simply not whats at issue. <\/p>\n
The upshot seems to be that Barnard will approve of some political speech on department websites, but not all such speech. Sure, its fine to have the administration decide in advance what additions to department websites should be made, but they should simply ban all additions that make political, ideological or moral statements. <\/p>\n
This kerfuffle is easily resolved: <\/p>\n
Dear Barnard College, <\/p>\n
The solution to your problems is this: adopt both the Chicago Principles of Free Expression, which youve already approved, but also the Kalven Principles of institutional neutrality. <\/p>\n
Cordially, Jerry Coyne (University of Chicago <\/p>\n
The big impediment is that some professors are so bursting with political bombast and feeling of virtue that they INSIST that their political views must be broadcast on their departmental websites. One example: <\/p>\n
The Department of Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies has now created its own websitethat is not administered by the college, and posted its pro-Palestinian statement and resources there. It has for the past two months been in discussions with Barnards provost office about permitting a link from its official website to this website, Dr. Jakobsen said. <\/p>\n
Fine, have your unofficial website. But the answer to whether this should link to the departmental website is NOPE! If Barnard says its okay, then theyre opening Pandoras box. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post: According to the New York Times, Barnard College is in a big kerfuffle involving free speech, institutional neutrality, and academic freedom. The problem is that theyre conflating them all, so the campus is full of stress and argument that, with some good will, could be avoided. Here I proffer a simple solution to the Colleges woes. Continue reading
\nConfusion at Barnard about free speech, institutional neutrality, and academic freedom - Why Evolution Is True<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"