A101 Team Speaking about these topics on campus could get you banned.
In light of dozens of recent campus protests in response to controversial guest speakers and accompanying violence on a handful of those campuses, two Cornell University researchers recently published an article in the journal Perspectives in Psychological Science on free speech on college campuses entitled “Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer.” The researchers, Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams, approach the topic from a psychological perspective, having conducted extensive research on bias, and state their belief that identifying the underlying psychological factors influencing student behavior can help quell such campus conflicts.
In addition to the high profile protests, shouting matches, and physical altercations that have taken place on college campuses, Ceci and Williams cite a Cato Institute survey about college students’ views on free speech as particularly disturbing. Among the CATO survey’s findings, Ceci and Williams specifically cite that:
- 40% of students would ban a speaker who says that men on average are better than women at math
- 49% of students would ban a speaker that criticizes police
- 51% of students said it was okay to prevent others from hearing a speaker with which they disagree
- 19% said violence is justified to stifle speakers who might make others uncomfortable
So why do college students hold these beliefs? The authors claim it’s due to many psychological factors such as selective perception, confirmation bias, and myside bias, among other reasons. In layman’s terms, students assign higher moral value to their own opinions and actions than to those on the opposing side. Plus, individuals seek out information that confirms what they believe, thereby further validating what they already thought. These psychological factors genuinely change the way individuals see and experience issues.
But just because we understand why this is happening does not make it right. In the article, Ceci and Williams write:
Almost any speech act is offensive to some group: talks on abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, sex differences in spatial ability, Black Lives Matter (BLM), the origin of the universe, immigrants, fetal stem cells, drilling in the Arctic, White privilege, and so forth, offend the moral sensibilities of some groups and can be sources of genuine stress and discomfort. Some advocates of safe spaces regard the discussion of such topics as forms of violence to be banned. Because almost anything can be offensive and cause stress to someone, the least tolerant individuals will get to decide what speech is permitted on campuses, and it will fall to the government to decide what speech is permitted off campus.
In commenting on the article, Ceci added, “There is no alternative to free speech, because every controversial topic has a substantial group of people who view it as hate speech. If we define unacceptable speech in terms of topics students say should be banned because they make them feel marginalized or uncomfortable, then we remove all controversial topics from consideration.”
In the latter statement, Ceci gets it exactly right. The entire point of a free speech guarantee is that words, thoughts, and ideas should not be banned from discussion. Citizens of a free country have a right to express themselves, to learn from other’s opinions, and to make up their own minds about what they think and feel – especially on a college campus. Banning speech, drowning out the words of a speaker, or carrying out violence in reaction to the possibility of speech are antithetical to everything this country stands for. Ceci and Williams help to diagnose the problem. We should take their research to heart if we are to strengthen the belief of the importance of free speech among our younger generations.
