Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” At the University of Minnesota, this does not appear to be the case.
On May 5, the full University of Minnesota Senate — which is comprised of faculty, student representatives from all five campuses, and others — adjourned without taking a vote on a document advocating free speech principles after students raised concerns about the document protecting “hateful” speech.
The document called for the implementation of “Four Core Principles” of free speech.
Law professor Dale Carpenter authored the principles, based off the University of Chicago’s “Chicago Statement,” which has since been used in various forms on college campuses nationwide.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Carpenter asserted that his principles do not protect forms of expression that have been identified by the Supreme Court as exceptions to the First Amendment. These forms include incitement, defamation or threats.
Carpenter’s first principle states, “A public university must be absolutely committed to protecting free speech, both for constitutional and academic reasons,” and calls for the university to guarantee “every member of its community the liberty to express ideas regardless of viewpoint.” Similarly, the document states, “No member of the University community has the right to prevent or disrupt expression.”
The second principle notes that speech characterized, as offensive by some should still be protected. “Free speech includes protection that some find offensive, uncivil, or even hateful… So long as the speech is constitutionally protected and neither harasses nor threatens another person, it cannot be prohibited.”
The third principle notes that university officials, like government officials, cannot assume the authority to “pick and choose who may speak or how much they may speak based on the perception that some speakers have ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ power in public debate.” It is the job of the university to sponsor “vigorous debate,” Carpenter writes, and they should therefore strive to hear a diversity of opinions on campus.
Citing the 1974 Woodward Report, the document concluded that free speech must come first, even when in conflict with other U of M policies.
“The University does not condone speech that is uncivil or hateful, and Universities officials should make this clear,” Carpenter writes. “Nevertheless, on those rare occasions when protecting expression conflicts with other values, like maintaining a climate of mutual respect on campus, the right to speak must prevail.”
Originally, these principles were well received at U of M. The Faculty Consultative Committee endorsed the principles in a 7-2 vote in April. However, following the endorsement, some student groups, particularly the Council of Graduate Students (COGS), began to speak out against the bill. Jonathan Borowsky was responsible for crafting COGS’ response to the proposal.
In an interview with the Minnesota Daily, Borowsky called the free speech document “pompous and condescending.” In the same article, Borowsky said COGS takes particular issue with a part of the third principle that states “free speech cannot be regulated on the ground that some speakers are thought to have more power or more access to the mediums of speech than others.” Borowsky argued that the free speech principles listed should be built around consensus, and since the third principle does not reflect consensus, it should be removed from the document.
The document was brought before U of M’s student senate on April 7. When reading the discussion it becomes evident that many seemed to side with Borowsky. One student at the meeting asked for clarification of the word “hateful,” saying that minority individuals are usually on the receiving end of such speech. Another said there are consequences for hate speech, and one even asked whether the document was needed at all.
Afterwards, the university senate discussed the document on May 5. Rather than standing with free speech, the senate adjourned the meeting without ever ruling on the document. As a result, Carpenter’s free speech principles will remain in limbo until the fall semester.
An interview request was sent to Jonathan Borowsky, but was not immediately responded to.
