INTRODUCTION
There are those who think that free speech and inclusivity on college campuses are inconsistent.
The notion that the two values are in tension with one another has become a common framing for
thinking about the modem campus. It is a mistake to set these two values in conflict with one
another. Modem universities embrace both free speech and inclusivity and must seek to sustain
both. We can only appreciate how the value of free speech and the value of diversity are
compatible if we are clear about the core purposes of a university. The central mission of a
university, I believe, is to advance the state of human knowledge and communicate what we have
learned to others. Universities must be places where controversial ideas can be raised and freely
discussed, a range of perspectives can be brought to bear on common problems, and conventional
wisdom can be held up to critical scrutiny and unconventional thinking.
Ultimately, realizing free speech principles on college campuses is a matter of culture as much as
it is a matter of policy.
I. PERSUASION AND FIRST PRINCIPLES
Universities should take active measures to address free speech problems on campus. Universities
should proactively ensure that their own policies and practices align with their core institutional
values. The first task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses might
be characterized as one of persuasion, or politics in its highest sense. There is a necessary
conversation taking place on college campuses in which members of the campus community are
trying to come to a common understanding of shared values and commitments. For both internal
and external audiences, it would be valuable for universities to clearly articulate what they stand
for. This raises the question of what a university's brand should be. First and foremost a
university should be understood to be an arena in which a diverse set of people gather to seriously
engage with difficult ideas. The fact that a university gives them the space to explore ideas does
not mean that the institution endorses the substance of any of the ideas expressed on campus or
by members of the campus community. Universities are sites of contestation. Provoking
controversy is central to the enterprise. The intellectual enterprise requires giving space for the
articulation of ideas that might be shocking and wrong if we are also to draw out ideas that are
innovative and true.
The 2014 University of Chicago statement on its principles of free expression is a relatively
recent entry in a line of reports written by university faculty explaining and defending the
centrality of free speech to the modem American university. There is substantial value to
university faculty adopting the Chicago statement as part of the process of building support for
free speech principles on college campuses. First, university faculty across the country should
give voice to their own commitment to these core values of the university. Adopting a clear
statement of principles reaffirms and clarifies the values of a scholarly community and sends a
message to both students and administrators as to what the faculty expects and prioritizes.
Second, in contemplating local statements regarding free speech, there is no reason to reinvent
the wheel. Third, there is value in faculty across the country making a common statement on
these important principles that are coming under pressure from both the political right and the
political left. Adopting the Chicago statement has local benefits, but it also bolsters the position
of faculty seeking to defend free and open discourse elsewhere and makes visible to outside
observers what values lie at the heart of American higher education.
, Having forged some agreement around a set of principles that can underwrite the scholarly
mission of the university, university leaders must then take on the difficult task of ensuring that
those principles actually inform university practices.
II. SOCIALIZATION INTO AN INCLUSIVE INTELLECTUAL CULTURE
The second task that would improve the environment for free speech on college campuses might
be thought of as one of socialization. The campus community is distinctive in that it is constantly
changing. There is a need to socialize that constant stream of students so that they can become
responsible members of the campus community, oriented to the values and principles of the
university: a kind of civic education for those who will be citizens of the campus community.
One would hope that university boards of trustees could be counted on to defend the ideals of
academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. However, even the members of governing
boards need an introduction to the scholarly values that animate campus culture but which might
be quite foreign to the everyday professional environment within which those board members
operate. Primary and secondary education leaves students unprepared for the kind of wide-open
intellectual debate that characterizes higher education.
Conservatives have been particularly critical of the creation of so-called "bias response teams"
and "safe spaces" on college campuses. In both concept and design, such efforts to encourage
students to anonymously initiate disciplinary proceedings for perceived acts of bias or to shelter
themselves from disagreeable ideas are likely to subvert free and open inquiry and invite fears of
political favoritism. Treating all members of the community with appropriate respect means
taking their concerns seriously and responding aggressively to acts of bullying, harassment, and
intimidation, but it also means insisting that the campus be open to the reasonable exchange of
ideas. To serve their truth-seeking function, universities must avoid stifling orthodoxies and hold
open the possibility that even deeply held beliefs can be critically scrutinized.
Supporting free speech and intellectual diversity on college campuses does not mean removing
all standards or engaging in provocation for the sake of provocation. Universities should not
place artificial limits on the scope of intellectual inquiry on campus and should try to construct a
pluralistic intellectual ecosystem that makes it relatively easy for all members of the campus
community to pursue ideas that interest them. At the same time, however, universities should
actively encourage excellence, and members of the campus community should exercise judgment
in providing to the campus community the best representatives of ideas worthy of examination.
Responsible members of the campus community may well disagree about which ideas are worthy
of discussion and which speakers have valuable things to say, but responsible members of the
campus community nonetheless have an obligation to act in good faith in pursuing the intellectual
mission that universities are constituted to undertake.
III. IMPLEMENTING FREE SPEECH
The third task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses might be
thought of as primarily administrative. We need to ensure that the regulations and procedures that
help organize campus life and coordinate the various activities of the members of the campus
community are conducive to creating an environment in which freedom of thought flourishes.
There are those who think that free speech and inclusivity on college campuses are inconsistent.
The notion that the two values are in tension with one another has become a common framing for
thinking about the modem campus. It is a mistake to set these two values in conflict with one
another. Modem universities embrace both free speech and inclusivity and must seek to sustain
both. We can only appreciate how the value of free speech and the value of diversity are
compatible if we are clear about the core purposes of a university. The central mission of a
university, I believe, is to advance the state of human knowledge and communicate what we have
learned to others. Universities must be places where controversial ideas can be raised and freely
discussed, a range of perspectives can be brought to bear on common problems, and conventional
wisdom can be held up to critical scrutiny and unconventional thinking.
Ultimately, realizing free speech principles on college campuses is a matter of culture as much as
it is a matter of policy.
I. PERSUASION AND FIRST PRINCIPLES
Universities should take active measures to address free speech problems on campus. Universities
should proactively ensure that their own policies and practices align with their core institutional
values. The first task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses might
be characterized as one of persuasion, or politics in its highest sense. There is a necessary
conversation taking place on college campuses in which members of the campus community are
trying to come to a common understanding of shared values and commitments. For both internal
and external audiences, it would be valuable for universities to clearly articulate what they stand
for. This raises the question of what a university's brand should be. First and foremost a
university should be understood to be an arena in which a diverse set of people gather to seriously
engage with difficult ideas. The fact that a university gives them the space to explore ideas does
not mean that the institution endorses the substance of any of the ideas expressed on campus or
by members of the campus community. Universities are sites of contestation. Provoking
controversy is central to the enterprise. The intellectual enterprise requires giving space for the
articulation of ideas that might be shocking and wrong if we are also to draw out ideas that are
innovative and true.
The 2014 University of Chicago statement on its principles of free expression is a relatively
recent entry in a line of reports written by university faculty explaining and defending the
centrality of free speech to the modem American university. There is substantial value to
university faculty adopting the Chicago statement as part of the process of building support for
free speech principles on college campuses. First, university faculty across the country should
give voice to their own commitment to these core values of the university. Adopting a clear
statement of principles reaffirms and clarifies the values of a scholarly community and sends a
message to both students and administrators as to what the faculty expects and prioritizes.
Second, in contemplating local statements regarding free speech, there is no reason to reinvent
the wheel. Third, there is value in faculty across the country making a common statement on
these important principles that are coming under pressure from both the political right and the
political left. Adopting the Chicago statement has local benefits, but it also bolsters the position
of faculty seeking to defend free and open discourse elsewhere and makes visible to outside
observers what values lie at the heart of American higher education.
, Having forged some agreement around a set of principles that can underwrite the scholarly
mission of the university, university leaders must then take on the difficult task of ensuring that
those principles actually inform university practices.
II. SOCIALIZATION INTO AN INCLUSIVE INTELLECTUAL CULTURE
The second task that would improve the environment for free speech on college campuses might
be thought of as one of socialization. The campus community is distinctive in that it is constantly
changing. There is a need to socialize that constant stream of students so that they can become
responsible members of the campus community, oriented to the values and principles of the
university: a kind of civic education for those who will be citizens of the campus community.
One would hope that university boards of trustees could be counted on to defend the ideals of
academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. However, even the members of governing
boards need an introduction to the scholarly values that animate campus culture but which might
be quite foreign to the everyday professional environment within which those board members
operate. Primary and secondary education leaves students unprepared for the kind of wide-open
intellectual debate that characterizes higher education.
Conservatives have been particularly critical of the creation of so-called "bias response teams"
and "safe spaces" on college campuses. In both concept and design, such efforts to encourage
students to anonymously initiate disciplinary proceedings for perceived acts of bias or to shelter
themselves from disagreeable ideas are likely to subvert free and open inquiry and invite fears of
political favoritism. Treating all members of the community with appropriate respect means
taking their concerns seriously and responding aggressively to acts of bullying, harassment, and
intimidation, but it also means insisting that the campus be open to the reasonable exchange of
ideas. To serve their truth-seeking function, universities must avoid stifling orthodoxies and hold
open the possibility that even deeply held beliefs can be critically scrutinized.
Supporting free speech and intellectual diversity on college campuses does not mean removing
all standards or engaging in provocation for the sake of provocation. Universities should not
place artificial limits on the scope of intellectual inquiry on campus and should try to construct a
pluralistic intellectual ecosystem that makes it relatively easy for all members of the campus
community to pursue ideas that interest them. At the same time, however, universities should
actively encourage excellence, and members of the campus community should exercise judgment
in providing to the campus community the best representatives of ideas worthy of examination.
Responsible members of the campus community may well disagree about which ideas are worthy
of discussion and which speakers have valuable things to say, but responsible members of the
campus community nonetheless have an obligation to act in good faith in pursuing the intellectual
mission that universities are constituted to undertake.
III. IMPLEMENTING FREE SPEECH
The third task for improving the environment for free speech on college campuses might be
thought of as primarily administrative. We need to ensure that the regulations and procedures that
help organize campus life and coordinate the various activities of the members of the campus
community are conducive to creating an environment in which freedom of thought flourishes.
