“Pro-Palestinian” protests have been erupting on college campuses across North America for the past few weeks, led, rather prolifically, by Columbia University, followed closely by others such as New York University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale. Some demonstrators have not only set up tent encampments, but have clashed with police and other students, resulting in violence, rule violations, vandalism and ultimately arrests in the U.S. In Canada, tents have been set up in schools like the University of Toronto, McGill in Montreal, and the University of British Columbia.
Something curious is going on in the upside-down world we’ve been finding ourselves in. Students are fighting for freedom of speech. Well, their freedom of speech, that is.
The protests have tested the boundaries of free expression, since many have taken place on private property against the rules of the institutions. While many protesters have participated peacefully, there have also been reports of harassment, intimidation, calls for violence and support for Hamas, which is a designated terror organization in Canada. In response, many schools have attempted to balance free speech rights with safety concerns and significant academic disruptions — with a number of schools moving to remote learning or cancelling exams. Columbia has even
cancelled its commencement ceremony.
On the one hand, where shouldn’t the free exchange of ideas thrive more than on a university campus? Yet, it’s been well-documented for some time now that numerous colleges have abdicated their commitment to free expression.
If free speech is to prevail, each side must resist the impulse to silence or punish the other
apple.news
Many of the protesters wear masks to protect their identities because they fear retaliation by those who find their views and actions abhorrent. They register complaints about the “cancel culture” that has come for some, after they were caught on camera uttering words that others found repugnant — at times even advocating for the murder of certain people, or justifying violence as “resistance.”
There’s a terrific sense of irony here because not so long ago, the same people equated “cancel culture” with “accountability culture” and supported censoring certain speech they didn’t like.
Similarly, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which tracks speech tolerance on campuses in the United States, has
ranked Harvard, Yale, Portland State, Columbia and New York University towards the bottom for free speech and open inquiry.
Yet, these schools have been among the major sites for recent protests. The same students who actively shut down discourse, bred a culture of academic intolerance, targeted professors and campaigned to cancel guest speakers with whom they disagree … are now lobbying for their right to free speech.
Perhaps these individuals will now understand the importance of allowing speech for all and come to value it. Perhaps they will see that power comes with a tendency to limit the speech of the opposition, and that the wheels of power can turn quickly. Perhaps this is a hopeful moment.
And yet, based on the unwillingness of the protesters to engage with those who hold different opinions, I’m not convinced. While they advocate for their speech (and right to protest), they are no less willing to engage in shutting down those who oppose them — even resorting to violence, bullying tactics and harassment to do so.
We should support the right to a peaceful protest, regardless of our own agreement. Speech has repercussions, but we should be cautious about distinguishing between a thoughtful good-faith opinion based on facts and advocacy for violence or harassment.
We should look at things with nuance, instead of resorting to emotional knee-jerk reactions. We should attempt to understand and discuss before we jump to destroying someone’s life. We shouldn’t take away someone else’s right to listen to speech we disagree with. We should strive to encourage respectful discourse between people who disagree so that we can make better sense of issues.