Higher Education and the Commitment to Free and Open Inquiry
Sent: September 10, 2021
From: Vincent J. Del Casino, Jr., Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dear Colleagues,
We seem to be sitting at an inflection point. At that point is a tension 鈥� perhaps
a productive one 鈥� that asks what constitutes robust, open debate? This debate is
not just on campuses but in our wider world, where people are calling into question,
for example, the science of vaccination or the efficacy of certain approaches to the
liberal arts.
As we all know, within higher education specifically, academics have long disagreed
with each other, politically, theoretically, and methodologically. Some of those debates
might have been considered 鈥渉ealthy鈥� in the past, even though they were often based
in exclusionary and elitist practices that have served to marginalize many voices.
As we know, power and authority in the academy has also been used to directly squash
certain perspectives over time. This outcome is partially driven by the fact that
the academy is also governed by a murky and uneven political economy that privileges
certain voices over others.
Within this complicated reality, we find ourselves engaging in critical questions
about what and how to manage the relations that are both part of our academic life
and exterior to that life. Put another way, we have to grapple with students and colleagues
who may challenge the way that truth gets defined and articulated or how certain lived
experiences are complicated by systemic practices that many would consider unjust.
Those students and colleagues are drawing not just from their own academic background
but also their own personal and lived experiences.
Of course, this messy world is further complicated by academic freedom and first amendment
rights. Speech is very hard to regulate 鈥� and it should be. In the context of academic
freedom, faculty members have the right to openly critique and criticize authority,
question each other, and challenge students. Freedom of speech and expression goes
further, in that it provides an opportunity to share ideas quite broadly. That does
not mean, however, that we have to like what others say, but universities are obligated
to provide the space for people to say it.
There are exceptions. For example, when speech by one person or group threatens physical
harm to or unlawfully harasses another person or group, a university may impose sanctions.
There is also the situation whereby the speech of one person or group knowingly or
recklessly defames another or invades a person鈥檚 right to privacy. Such speech may
be regulated by local and federal law. In the context of academic freedom, we also
have campus processes (and external accreditation bodies) as well as policies on curriculum
and course syllabi, which govern the content of individual courses or programs.
In general, however, most speech is protected speech and no matter what we think about
someone鈥檚 speech, it is not up to the university (or its administration) to judge
what should be said and by whom. The university has to provide equal access as best
it can to all the debates. This commitment to equal access means that even if one
administrator or another vehemently disagrees with the speech of another community
member, they have to manage and protect the rights of all community members to speak
freely and openly. We cannot interfere with speech that is protected, no matter what
we think of that speech.
So, what is the best way to confront speech we might find abhorrent, distasteful or,
simply, not true? The answer is more speech 鈥� and then more speech again. That said,
we must acknowledge the emotional labor that goes into some struggles; there is a
clear need for more voices to be at the table, including those who might be directly
affected by such speech and their allies. Picking and choosing which issues to take
up and which ones to walk away from 鈥� a personal decision that might change depending
on the day and one鈥檚 energy level 鈥� is a necessary part of our reality as well.
I am not na茂ve. I know the playing field is not an even one. I understand the histories
that have created this uneven field. At the same time, I cannot demand nor can I make
demands on my colleagues who choose to write certain opinions or publish certain papers
that I, or others, might find politically, ethically, or morally problematic. Regardless
of job title or level, we must respect everyone鈥檚 right to free speech, and it is
incumbent on our leaders to give colleagues鈥� work 鈥� whether they personally align
with it or not 鈥� the space to be shared and viewed by others.
Given all that is going on in the world today, I hope that we can continue to engage
each other in an honest and open debate about what matters to us professionally and
personally. We can dislike what others say 鈥� vehemently and with deep passion, in
fact. When people say something out loud, they should be prepared for others to exercise
their right to respond, as others have a right to challenge the ideas of their colleagues
in a robust way as long as it does not infringe on another person鈥檚 right to their
speech.
If we don鈥檛 protect these rights, universities will lose one of their core functions,
which is to develop theories, ideas, and practices that help advance the well-being
of others and take up the very real and, sometimes, scary challenges that lie ahead.
Sincerely,
Vin
