Really interesting essay from Andrew Koppelman about how free speech–including being exposed to offensive ideas–makes us better, smarter, more engaged people who form a better community and society. He grounds this in Milton, Mill, Aristotle, and the Yiddish concept of the “mensch.”
But he justifies his argument by pushing back on five-plus-year-old incidents. The starting point is Jason Kilborn of UIC Law, who was suspended (in 2020) for using bowdlerized references to racist and sexist epithets on an exam.1 Koppelman also discusses Lukianoff and Haidt complaining about coddled college students who demand that universities restrict speech and speakers they believe hateful and harmful.
Based on these examples, one would conclude that the sole (or at least paradigmatic) threat to free speech remains the lefty sophomore at Bard complaining about racism. Not universities firing faculty (at the behest of complaining students) who say bad things about Charlie Kirk posthumously. Not universities firing faculty and shutting down departments (whether at the behest of students or under threat from state and federal government) over teaching about race, gender, and the existence of trans people. Not universities suspending students (upon the federal government threat of losing funds) for engaging in political protest that objectors decry as antisemitic or who protests speeches by government officials pursuing bad policy. Not the federal government seeking to deport students for engaging in political protest that objectors decry as antisemitic or anti-American.
By using Kilborn and similar examples and ignoring ample events with the opposite political valence of the past 3+ years, Koppelman gives the impression that lefty college students complaining about messages of inequality pose the great threat to free speech; he ignores (or at least does not highlight) the equivalent threat of right-leaning government officials and their supporters, including right-leaning college students. The students who complained about Jason’s exam are not more “censorious” or a greater threat to free speech than the student who complained about the content of a social work class on diversity (resulting in a state legislator intervening and the university firing the prof)2 or the students who complain about professors being insufficiently hagiographic towards Kirk (with similar results).
To be clear, I liked the philosophical/ethical substance of Koppelman’s argument. And he offers the correct prescription in defending free speech. But the disease he seeks to cure emanates from places other than lefty 20-year-olds at Oberlin. The examples we use to illustrate that disease should reflect that reality.
- The case was a travesty. The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal of his retaliation claim but not his compelled speech claim. ↩︎
- In fairness, this happened a week ago and Koppelman’s piece as been in the works for much longer. But similar examples of right-wing censorship are not hard to find or to use. ↩︎