Universities must protect both speech and student safety - FT中文網
登錄×
電子郵件/用戶名
密碼
記住我
請輸入郵箱和密碼進行綁定操作:
請輸入手機號碼,透過簡訊驗證(目前僅支援中國大陸地區的手機號):
請您閱讀我們的用戶註冊協議私隱權保護政策,點擊下方按鈕即視爲您接受。
以色利-哈馬斯衝突

Universities must protect both speech and student safety

US colleges need to clarify the difference between words and actions

Freedom of speech is one of the core principles of America’s First Amendment. It is often defined as a person’s right to say whatever they like, as long as such speech does not endanger someone else’s personal safety. This goes to the heart of a crucial idea, which is that speech — even speech that we find repugnant — is different from conduct.

The boundaries of that idea have been tested in recent years in many ways. They were tested again last week when three presidents of elite US universities — the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT — appeared before a House committee examining antisemitism on campuses in the wake of the Israeli war in Gaza. A wave of pro-Palestinian protests have hit campuses all over the US, where university politics lean heavily to the left.

Such schools have in recent years tended to err on the side of condemning those who champion impolitic views, often conservative ones, or criticise leftwing ideas such as critical race theory. Now, that tendency has left them straddling an uncomfortable line between protecting individuals and protecting free speech.

Pro-Palestinian protesters on campuses chant slogans like “Intifada now,” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free,” which some interpret as a call for genocide against Jews. There have also been increasing episodes of harassment of Jewish students on campuses. In many cases, perpetrators have not been cancelled or fired as they might have had they criticised, say, affirmative action or used hateful language against minority students. This has provoked outrage among many (including some powerful donors) who feel universities are turning a blind eye to antisemitism.

The issue has now reached a tipping point. When asked if it would be against university bullying and harassment policies if someone on campus called for a genocide of Jews, none of the presidents could come up with a clear answer. Penn’s Liz Magill, who had labelled such calls “hateful” but claimed they were protected by the school’s commitment to free speech, backtracked the next day and resigned, calling the attacks on Jewish students unacceptable. In an ever more hateful world, she said, university speech “policies need to be clarified and evaluated”.

Indeed. There are several thorny issues in play here, from changing generational views about Israel, to the parsing of individuals into ever smaller interest groups, to the challenge of balancing free speech and safety. Speech codes at private universities don’t have to follow constitutional law. These institutions could, if they chose, explicitly prohibit calls for genocide.

Here, though, we should go back to the differences between words and actions. If there is a clear and present danger to someone’s safety, then speech that provokes that danger should be prohibited. That would include attacks on individual students during rallies. Direct calls for genocide should also fall under this rubric. But slogans that are merely hateful (or perceived as such) may not. Universities are places where people go to be exposed to different views: if speech is constrained with more and more specific rules designed to fit the politics of the day, the truth is likely to become harder to find. Too many institutions have drifted towards legalistic self-protection rather than truth seeking.

But to the extent that there are rules, they must be applied equally. Faculty and students cannot be penalised for hate speech against one group, and not another. The fact that the heads of America’s most elite universities do not have a clear understanding of their own speech codes and how to enforce them is cause for grave concern.

版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。

矽谷在川普支援下挑戰歐盟技術規則

Meta等美國團體有了川普撐腰,試圖讓有關人工智慧和市場支配地位的歐盟規定在執行時縮水。

歐洲如何在沒有美國幫助的情況下保衛自己

歐洲各國正爭相填補安全缺口,以防川普撤走美國駐歐軍事資產。

比亞迪的戰略轉變將衝擊全球汽車製造商

比亞迪將先進駕駛輔助系統作爲標準配置,不收取額外費用,這將會削弱競爭對手的實力。

Lex專欄:歐洲天然氣面臨似曾相識的局面

除非歐洲大陸修復其潛在的能源結構,否則很難完全消除俄羅斯進口天然氣的誘惑。

蘋果悄悄轉向印度

蘋果希望在中國以外實現供應鏈多元化,印度能抓住這個機會嗎?

「莫迪-川普」能源承諾爲美國天然氣出口商帶來紅利

莫迪和川普上週同意增加美國石油和天然氣出口,這是兩國貿易關係再平衡努力的一部分。
設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×