On Monday, the Task Force on Freedom of Expression created by President Lawrence Bacow released a Draft Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Inquiry at Tufts University. This document was the result of almost two years of discontent and hand-wringing after a Tufts journal, The Primary Source, published an offensive Christmas carol in December 2006. Some have faulted this document for offering little in the way of explicit regulations that can define the extent to which freedom of speech will be protected. But I argue that the document is very clear in its intentions and goes too far in constraining freedom of speech at Tufts University.
One of the most famous articulations in favor of freedom of speech came from the philosopher John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. Mill argued that governments should not infringe on the liberty of individuals except in cases where an individual's actions cause direct harm to another. And most speech does not cause direct harm to others.
Later, Mill offered a powerful defense of freedom of speech's usefulness to society. Speech, he argued, must be free because we never know when a particular piece of expression or discourse has some element of truth.
If we stifle speech, we may be neglecting a particularly important or advantageous perspective that, with freedom, would have come to light. Even if a certain instance of speech is false, allowing free expression ensures that those with alternative "better" perspectives reaffirm their views in the debate that ensues.
The First Amendment provides this same protection for freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has stated that the only legitimate justification for limiting speech is when the speech has a high likelihood of causing imminent violence against others.
Clearly, speech that riles up an angry mob to immediately inflict violence against an individual would be deemed a criminal offense. However, most speech in a newspaper or magazine, regardless of how provocative, racist or offensive, cannot be rationally argued as inciting imminent violence against others unless it is specifying a time and location for a violent crime to take place.
The Tufts Declaration on Freedom of Expression does not abide by this age-old legal theory. The Declaration states that expression and inquiry at Tufts must be exercised in "ways that respect the dignity of others." All speech must be "free from various forms of harassment and intimidation."
This all sounds cuddly and fluffy, but it does not protect the speech that the First Amendment and our Supreme Court have deemed free. And let us not forget what President Bacow rightly stated: "While Tufts is a private institution and not technically bound by First Amendment guarantees, it is my intention to govern as President as if we were."
According to the Task Force doctrine, the Christmas carol in question would not be protected. The carol clearly disrespected the dignity of others, namely, African-American students at Tufts, and it might even be called harassment. It was under this exact pretense that the Committee on Student Life unabashedly infringed on the freedom of speech of The Primary Source and imposed a preposterous ruling that only further infringed upon their freedom of expression and the related freedom of the press.
But, you may be thinking, what was so bad with that ruling anyway? Let us think back to the fall of 2006 when that infamous Christmas carol was printed. Immediately after the Tufts population read those offensive and racist words, there was a powerful, vocal backlash against The Primary Source, its writers and its editors.
That backlash is exactly what J.S. Mill envisioned would occur given complete and unquestioned protection of the freedom of speech and expression. Views that would have been stifled and allowed to ferment in the minds of a few racists were instead laid out in the public arena for the university to collectively ridicule and dismiss. Such is the genius of free speech.
Thus, I implore the Task Force on Freedom of Expression to rethink its Declaration in order to keep it in line with the brilliance of our Constitution's protection of freedom of speech. Not only will this be in accordance with President Bacow's request, but it will also follow in the traditions of free speech embedded in our nation's history and allow open debate and criticism at this fine institution for years to come.
--
Ashwin Phatak is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy. He is writing his senior honors thesis on J.S. Mill and freedom of speech. He can be reached at Ashwin.Phatak@tufts.edu.
