Earlier this month, the University of Chicago released a praiseworthy update to its policy on freedom of speech.  The policy protects free academic discourse and speakers’ rights to address controversial topics, while also setting forth principles about students’ responsibilities to respect guest speakers and fellow students, and about the University’s need to prevent disruptions to its daily operations.

“In light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse,” the University of Chicago established a Committee on Freedom of Expression this past July.  On January 7, this committee released a report affirming the University’s steadfast commitment to protecting free speech and free academic inquiry, instructing students to follow the standards set for the school administration and to not interfere with others’ capacities for free expression.  Rather, it urged students to refrain from trying to silence opinions they find objectionable, and instead to explain their disagreement in a civilized manner.  This commitment to free speech, though, is not without restrictions; as the report explains, the school upholds its members’ rights to unrestricted discussion “[except] insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University.”

The timing of this report is crucial, as its release comes at a time when several American universities have recent histories of restricting or, through passivity, allowing the restriction of Jewish and pro-Israeli students’ rights to free speech.  Two recent examples that have warranted the intervention of the Louis D. Brandeis Center are Brooklyn College and the University of California at Davis.  At Brooklyn College, two public safety officers of the school unjustly removed four pro-Israel student protestors from an anti-Israel event in February 2013.  The officers did so at the behest of the event organizer, who is not affiliated with the College and requested their removal based on his knowledge of their pro-Israel beliefs.  The UC Davis incident occurred in November 2012.  Three Jewish students tried to speak out at an anti-Israel rally and were silenced with several anti-Semitic chants, including “F**k Israel,” and then backed into a wall by the hostile crowd.  The administrations of both schools have since worked with the Brandeis Center to implement new policies meant to ensure the safety of Jewish students wishing to voice their opinions on campus.

The University of Chicago’s Committee released this report having “carefully reviewed the University’s history, examined events at other institutions, and consulted a broad range of individuals both inside and outside the University.”  The report draws upon the University’s history of protecting students’ and guest speakers’ right to engage in the discussion of controversial issues and opinions since its establishment in 1890:  “From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the University’s culture.”  The Committee alludes to past University presidents who proclaimed that freedom of expression is fundamental to the school’s mission, as well as to incidents when the University safeguarded students’ and speakers’ rights to controversial speech.  Such events included a 1932 lecture from communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster and the 1968 anti-Vietnam War protests.

Though the report affirmed the University’s concern about preserving a safe and mature environment for its students, it held that assuring freedom of speech takes priority.  As the committee proclaims, it is the responsibility of the university to ensure free academic discourse, even at the expense of facilitating the spread of dangerous speech.

Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict.  But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.  Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

While it is the University administration and faculty’s responsibility to protect the practice of free speech on campus, the Committee’s report also called upon Chicago students to do their part in respecting the rights of others to express their ideas and opinions freely.  The report reminded students that while it is in line with the principles set forth therein to express disagreement with lecturers or other students, attempts to silence speakers promoting unpopular opinions are in fact detrimental to free expression:  “As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression.”

The Committee also made sure to reserve the right to restrict forms of expression that University administrators would deem “incompatible with the functioning of the University.”  They delineated specifically that the University would not support “expression that violates the law,” libel, threats to or harassment of individuals associated with the school, or generally forms of public speech that would prevent the University from being able to operate properly.  Accordingly, the Committee reserved the right to “regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.  But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.”

The report concludes: “The University of Chicago’s longstanding commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness.  That is our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future.”  The end of the press release also bears the names of all seven members of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, whose chair is Geoffrey R. Stone, the University’s Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law.

As Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) President Greg Lukianoff has pointed out in his 2012 book and other recent publications, American educational institutions have demonstrated in recent years a double standard when it comes to this freedom, taking steps to silence the proponents of unpopular opinions but then acting as First Amendment purists when speakers’ beliefs align with those of the campus Left.  In the face of this nationwide trend, Chicago’s commitment to the indiscriminate protection of free speech is certainly welcomed news.

The University’s decision to publish this statement is commendable, but, similar to many universities’ policies on freedom of expression, it does not seek a middle ground between a purist view of unrestricted free speech (i.e. one that could be used as justification for ignoring the problem of hate speech) and censorship.  The silencing of opinions on university campuses is detrimental to academic freedom, and such acts constitute abuses of administrative power.  However, if hate speech becomes pervasive on a campus without the interference of university administrators or faculty, it creates a hostile environment for the members of targeted groups.  It is for this latter reason that the University of Chicago’s new policy on free expression would have benefited from more attention to ways the university can limit harassment without restricting speech.  As Brandeis Center President Kenneth L. Marcus suggested in a recent article: “The best course is often for administrators to speak out, in a firm but non-threatening way.  A strong leader can condemn the offensive speech, articulate their institution’s values and educate the community about civility norms.  To ignore this point is to reinforce the Hobson’s choice which leads to either censorship or abdication.”  Though the Committee’s report claims that it is not the role of the University to determine what constitutes offensive speech, the administration still has the capacity to listen to student leaders and respond to situations where student groups are claiming to feel threatened.  University President Robert Zimmer declares in the official diversity statement, “Commitment to diversity is central to our mission of discovery.”  A necessary part of this commitment is letting members of disenfranchised groups know that they have the full support of the administration, even when feel that they do not have it from certain groups of students.  Leaders of the University of Chicago can affirm this support in instances of alleged harassment without suppressing offensive speech.

The Brandeis Center has been working tirelessly to help universities to ensure freedom of speech while forcefully addressing anti-Semitism and other forms of bias on campus.  Guidance on how to reconcile the principles of free expression with the goal of protecting students from harassment is available in the “best practices” section of our website.  Our site also provides links to resources from the Office for Civil Rights that provide helpful information on how to determine whether a hostile environment is being created for certain groups, as well as on how to address such situations without violating students’ and faculty members’ freedom of speech.