censorship

If the best defense of your speech is “I have the right to say it”, your ideas probably stink. Too often, people respond to criticism with a reminder that they have freedom of speech without consideration of the condemnation others are equally at liberty to express.

At Boston College, students are grappling with acts of racism, and the university’s seeming reluctance to overtly denounce it.

Choosing inaction

The Boston College online paper BC Heights published an op-ed titled BC Must Stop Mistaking Comfort for Compassion. In a sentence, the author writes that Boston College’s culture of silence protects comfort over conscience, teaching students to value safety and image more than moral courage:

BC prides itself on forming “men and women for others.” Yet, when faced with moments that demand moral courage, the institution and its students often choose comfort instead.

Throughout the article, the student author expresses their disappointment in the university’s tepid reaction to a video of a racist tirade on campus. They contextualize it by juxtaposing it with BC’s (lack of) reaction to the increased ICE presence on school grounds, identifying a pattern of silence. It ends with an admonition of the school administration ignoring incidents that have rattled the student community. The tension between institutional neutrality and moral responsibility split the crowd in the comments.

Freedom from consequences

A user writing under the pseudonym “Curious George” took issue with the author’s argument, taking it as an attack on free speech. So as to not misrepresent their words, I’ll post the full content of their comment (with my rebuttals interspersed):

True compassion shouldn’t be compelled by social pressure or dictated by institutions. It’s voluntary. Demanding that students or administrators take political stances undermines the very freedom of thought that a university should protect. At a place of higher learning, people should be free to speak — or not speak — without being branded as immoral.

Why? You make this assertion as though it’s a fact, when it’s actually an argument that you don’t elaborate on. Why does attending an institution of higher learning exempt you from criticism? That seems antithetical to the entire purpose of attaining a respectable education. If your arguments can’t survive challenge, that ought to be considered a learning moment, not a moral violation.

Your call, Magali, for mandatory outrage is a symptom of the collectivist mindset that dominates our campuses. It’s one thing to condemn racism — which any moral person would do — but it’s another to demand that others adopt your preferred political response. Liberty means respecting others’ right to form their own judgments, even if you think they’re wrong.

The author isn’t challenging your right to form your own judgement, they’re challenging the judgement itself. Challenging ideas is the heart of free speech (and a defining feature of universities).

Moral outrage is easy. Upholding free speech and its implications is harder. Universities should protect free and open discourse, not weaponize it to enforce ideological conformity.

Sure. “Free and open discourse” is a noble thing to chase. A racist tirade doesn’t facilitate that, though—just the opposite, in fact. It aims to silence others based on anything except the merit of their discourse. By taking a strong stance against racism, an institution fosters the exact sort of dialogue you claim to want. By ignoring it, they invite the exact sort of silencing you claim to abhor.

My point is that we don’t need university committees to tell us when to care or not to care.

And your point is directly addressed by the person you’re replying to: silence in the face of challenge is as much a choice as action is. You may choose not to speak—others may use their speech to call you out. That’s not a violation of your rights, it’s a consequence of your choices.

Courage is our imperative

The author of this op-ed makes a stellar point: when our institutions lack the moral courage to take any stance, especially with regards to meritless attacks on the people they’re meant to serve, neutrality is weaponized against us. Using your speech to counter that which hurts our communities is an admirable and virtuous expression of our personal liberty.