Connecticut College hosted writers from The Atlantic and The New Yorker on Dec. 3 for an educational and insightful conversation regarding the relationship between race and free speech on college campuses.
Jelani Cobb of The New Yorker criticized the invocation of the First Amendment as a defense of discriminatory and destructive speech, while The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf warned against the unintended consequences of instating speech codes as a protective measure. The dialogue was moderated by John Dankosky, the vice president of news at the Connecticut Public Broadcasting Network.
Calling the conversation a “morally urgent” issue, Friedersdorf explained that free speech has often been used to gain rights for marginalized groups, not detract from them.
“The Bill of Rights and the people who defend it are my closest allies” said Friedersdorf, noting that in his opinion, speech codes that guide what students may or may not say violate the First Amendment and are susceptible to loopholes. He remarked on failed speech codes that ultimately allowed racist students to display swastikas and voice their thoughts on white supremacy while restricting the greater populus.
“The same laws used to silence bigots can be used to silence you,” Friedersdorf warned.
Conversely, Cobb emphasized that although he is certainly a proponent of the right to free speech, it is imperative to recognize that “not all free speech is created equal.” As he describes, free speech is often utilized to re-inscribe hierarchies and marginalize communities that are already marginalized.
When examining these issues in the context of college campuses, Cobb specifically noted that incidents of racial hostility are directly connected to college retention rates and academic performance for students of color. Therefore, although it may be important to recognize the right to free speech, such a problem arises when “we find ourselves saying one thing while remaining blind to the broader implications that may have deadly consequences.”
Amidst the journalists’ respectful debate, moments of agreement arose periodically. When Cobb described public surveillance as the most significant threat to free speech, Friedersdorf immediately agreed, referencing his recent Atlantic piece on Edward Snowden.
During this portion of the conversation, Cobb alluded to the specific incident in New York where NYPD officials followed a group of university students affiliated with the Students for Justice in Palestine organization. The journalist argued that these types of threats have much broader social implications for women and students and color and added that “listening is what’s missing in the equation.”
A moment of tension arose when Conor Friedersdorf pointed out the impermanence of the college bubble. He commented that students currently protesting “within four years are going to be in places where there is no administration to make demands against…I don’t see a ton of resilience.” Friedersdorf elaborated that while students at Yale, for example, were justified in feeling oppressed, they would soon hold added power because “they have a Yale diploma.”
While the debate remained logical and civil, Cobb and many attendees reacted against Friedersdorf’s word choice.
“That’s like saying President Obama should not feel humiliated by having to show his birth certificate because ‘you get to be President,’” countered Cobb, “What it sounds like is invalidation.”
In response to the conversation’s redirection, Friedersdorf argued, “I dissent from the notion that empowering someone is condescending or invalidating.”
Friedersdorf also noted that aggressive responses to minor speech infractions at times impede the progress of conversation, especially in student communities where participants fear social stigma for their words.
“People in these activist communities are terrified of saying the wrong thing,” Friedersdorf observed, calling internally contentious groups “historically self-destructive.”
“That’s what the left has been,” responded Cobb, highlighting the notion that intolerance of hate speech marks a positive social trend that encourages students to be mindful of their words.
In his closing remarks, Cobb posed the question of whether bigoted speech would become acceptable “if we can eliminate pay differentials, and mass incarceration, and housing discrimination.”
Friedersdorf ended his commentary by observing that “people learn in different ways,” and therefore while internalized stigma might help some people reverse their bigotry, “other people learn from debate… I do worry about that second kind of student not having that [transformative] conversation.” •
