The New York Times required two reporters to report that some students wrote a letter to NYU administrators criticizing their choice of Jonathan Haidt as graduation speaker. They breathlessly paint this as an ironic attempt to silence an important free-speech hero and the greatest current threat to free expression–greater than NYU pre-recording student speeches to ensure no one says anything about Israel. And NYU did not rescind the invitation. So even if you believe deplatforming is a problem, this was, at best, an attempted deplatforming. But this is what the Times believes is the great free-expression problem of our time.
Snark aside, a serious question: What should a student with genuine disagreement with Haidt (whether based on his viewpoints, the questionable quality of his work, or his condescension towards the very audience he has been invited to address) do? What is the “more speech” that this student can or should undertake?
She cannot debate him because this is not a debate. This forum does not entail Q&A, so “engage, ask questions, and challenge premises” is off the table. Reactions to my prior posts show that I sit on a lonely island in finding First Amendment value in audience heckling that does not prevent the speaker from speaking. My guess is NYU will confiscate signs or other forms of silent protest. NYU might even punish a student who silently protests in the moment, such as turning her back on Haidt. I imagine if a student attempted to walk out during the speech, NYU would not allow her to return for the remainder of the ceremony.
The obvious expressive act is the letter objecting to Haidt as speaker and explaining the reasons for that objection, especially if well thought out and explained–perhaps the students are familiar with Haidt’s work and have decided he is full of shit. Of course, I am sure the Times reporters (and likely Haidt) would label that not as more speech but as intolerance, censorship, and refusal to be exposed to “perspectives different from their own.”
What is left for the student? Absent herself from the speech. But that means absenting herself from an event designed to celebrate a lifecycle milestone for which she worked and spent $ 400k over the past four years. It seems unfair to say that Jonathan Haidt has a right to a forum that overcomes the student’s celebration.1 And again, for the reasons above, the reporters would describe this as another example of refusing to listen to ideas they do not like.
So what is really left for the student? The title of this post.
Or as Ken White puts it:
Free speech culture means shut up with your criticisms or disagreements with other people’s speech. Free speech culture means students should accept, passively, without dissent, whoever the school chooses to honor with a speaker gig.
Jonathan Haidt is a Thinker, a Speaker. It is his role to say what he thinks. The students are students. Their role is to receive wisdom, to accept. The universe should be ordered to protect Haidt’s right to speak without hurt feelings.
I do not know the answer to this. I do not think that student objections should derail any graduation speaker. I do know that this is complex, that there is a balance of interests at work–objecting audience members have expressive rights worthy of acknowledgement.
And it seems clear that the Times reporters (or the rest of the “free-speech culture” crowd) have no interest in engaging with that balance, recognizing that complexity, or acknowledging that anyone other than the powerful Thinker/Speaker has free-speech interests.
- Where a graduation speech differs from a sponsored talk or presentation. It is fair to tell a student “if you don’t want to listen to Jonathan Haidt, skip the speech and find something else to on a Wednesday afternoon.” It is not fair to tell a student “if you don’t want to listen to Jonathan Haidt, skip your graduation ceremony.” ↩︎