Dear Cornell BOOM: An Open Letter
Dear Editors of Cornell "BOOM",
I am writing to offer my appreciation, support, and concern for issues raised by Mr. Khan Thomas Branch’s essay “Dear Cornell College” (Cornell Boom, May 3, 2016). It takes courage to advocate for one’s opinions and strength of character to look out for others. It is in this spirit that I respond to the points raised in “Dear Cornell College.” I hope to convince readers that restricting freedom of expression is not an effective way to protect students of color. Indeed, unintended consequences of such actions can have devastating long-term effects, both for individuals and the academic community. I would like to share some of the personal experiences that led me to these views.
My commitment to free of speech stems from my life with high-functioning autism. Like most children with autism, I had a significant language delay, and extreme difficulty understanding and using verbal language. However, I had the great fortune of being hyperlexic; I had a deep fascination with letters and a spontaneous ability to decode words [1]. This was a great advantage when, at 3 years of age, I began language and social skills therapy. It took 10 years before I could participate in verbal exchanges without scripting. Similarly, it took nearly 12 years for me to learn how to manage my response to strong negative emotions. They included sounds (e.g. shouting, crying, etc.), emotions (facial expressions or body language), and angry or cruel speech (written or spoken). These triggers could catapult me into a meltdown. Throughout it all, the written word, be it in books, road signs, license plates, closed captioning, check lists, or the scrolling text I visualized when others spoke, was a constant - something I could hold onto in the chaotic and often frightening “human world.”[1]
Although I continue to face challenges every day, if someone were to give me the option to have my autism taken away, I would not do it. With the passing years, I have learned to embrace the discomforts that go along with autism spectrum disorder, occasional “social hiccups” when engaging in conversation, my inability to initiate and foster friendships, and confusion about what the hell is going on in swirling social scenes around me! In other words, I'm still adjusting to my reality, working to tackle each new problem and knowing that sometimes I will fail… utterly. And yet, I do not want protection from the discomfort and pain that are of our complex world. Why should this be so? This is because I’ve learned that a defining feature of being human is to have the courage and persistence to face life's challenges, to grow from those experiences, and “transform suffering into a creative force.” [2] The philosopher Viktor Frankl phrased it best in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning:
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” [3]
Taking inspiration from Mr. Frankl, I made the decision in junior high to own my autism and work to “find the funny” in everything around me. But a few years ago I noticed that, while I was embracing the challenges that make us human, many of my peers were sprinting away in the opposite direction. I was perplexed, so I did some research. Then I was irked. I learned of the new protective culture, which is based on the belief that we younglings are ill-equipped for the oft painful experiences that foster individualism, strength, and self-reliance [4–6]. More stunning was the revelation that many “elite schools” like Harvard, Yale, and Brown, actually police student’s thoughts and speech, on the grounds that they may give "offense." Many of our “premier institutions” actually have policies that prevent the unfettered exchange of ideas, discourse, argument and humor required for students’ intellectual, psychological, and social growth, [6–13]. If my parents, teachers, and professionals had played the role of the Harvard man, protecting my fragile psyche and stultifying my intellectual development, I wouldn’t have a life of my own. (No, scratch that. I couldn’t leave the house.) Remember, it took twelve years for me to learn how to manage my responses to negative emotions. That required practice in all sorts of settings, as well as the ability to speak and learn freely, and make mistakes without fear of serious retribution. In truth, every young person needs these opportunities.
This is where Mr. Branch’s very important essay comes in. The best summary I can discern from his polemic is the following quotation: "CORNELL COLLEGE IS NOT IN THE PLACE TO PROTECT CRUEL AND VILE SPEECH.” He further asserts that because Cornell’s private status gives it the power to ban free speech on campus that it in fact should do so. Finally, he characterizes the defense of free speech by our Faculty, Administration, and President as a misuse of “language reserved for government-regulated speech.” He concludes that the failure of the administration to restrict speech and stop the hatred shows that they are “insincere in regard to the concerns from students of color on campus.”
Mr. Branch’s powerful narrative raises three concerns, each of which I will address in turn. The first is his belief that “hatred” can be eradicated by restricting free speech. This point poses two problems. First, how does he define hatred? Does he mean that those students who painted "Build a Wall, Make it Tall" on the kiosks should be punished? Does he mean that the Latino students who felt they were targeted by that graffiti need protection from speech they find racist? Such information is needed to develop an intervention strategy. [11] For the sake of argument, let’s say we adopt Mr. Brach’s approach. What outcomes might we expect? Historically, such provisions sow division rather than peace. Censorship has the unintended effect of pushing hate underground where it can fester. [11, 14–17] This fosters an us-versus-them environment. In the words of President Harry S. Truman:
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. [18]"
Whether a governing body be that of a college or a country, the minute it decides to suppress free speech, peril can only result. Free speech is the most valuable tool that marginalized individuals have to make their voices heard. Perhaps this is why freedom of opinion and expression are part of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [19] Similarly, freedom of expression has always been a core part of Amnesty International's work. [20] Nonetheless, many colleges and universities have policies that restrict free speech. [6,11,21] As noted by Mr. Branch, private colleges are not legally bound by the First Amendment. However, most make extensive promises of free speech to their students and faculty. In this case, said institutions can be held responsible for denying free speech on a contractual basis if it enacts policies that restrict free speech. This is where the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) comes in. Founded in 1999 by a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania named Alan Charles Kors and a Boston civil liberties attorney named Harvey Silverglate, FIRE is dedicated to protecting individual liberties on college campuses across the country. Its employees come from all walks of life, observe different religions, and hold differing political views. However, they are united in the shared purpose of the defending the First Amendment and reminding colleges of their commitments to their students and community.
Returning to the analysis of Mr. Branch's claims, what is Cornell College’s own commitment to its students and community? In the opening pages of The Compass, our student handbook, we find Cornell’s mission statement, which reads as follows: [22]
“Cornell College offers an innovative and rigorous learning community where faculty and staff collaborate with students to develop the intellectual curiosity, creativity, and moral courage necessary for a lifetime of learning and engaged citizenship.”
Directly following the above statement are the college’s Core Values: [22]
“A liberal education that celebrates discovery and embraces the integration and application of knowledge;
Intellectual, moral, and personal growth;
Civic and social responsibility; [and]
The dignity and worth of each individual in a diverse community."
The accomplishment of these goals requires freedom of speech and an environment that promotes open inquiry and debate. Consistent with this, Cornell’s policy on speech states. [23]
“College students are citizens of the academic community; therefore students should have the right to freedoms including freedom of speech, assembly, and the right of petition.
Faculty members and administrative officials should ensure that institutional powers are not employed to inhibit student’s exercise of their rights both on and off campus.”
So, how can we move forward? Time and again, we find that best way to confront bad speech is with more good speech. [24] Sunlight, it seems, is the best disinfectant. [25] Thus, in making a case for the importance of free speech, our Faculty, Administration, and President, are being wholly consistent with our policy on free speech, as well as our mission and core values. Cornell's status as a private college does not immediately force it to observe its First Amendment obligations. However, by using institutional powers to restrict speech, the administration would betray our mission and core values and potentially be subject to litigation. By denying free speech, the administration would rob students of the opportunity to develop their creativity, moral courage, and preparedness for the real world and its many challenges[6,26–29].
This represents a unique Gordian knot for millennials, since poor conversational and social skills are a defining feature of our generation. [30, 31] Due to their reliance on virtual communication, many millennials have missed out on valuable face-to-face interactions and haven't yet learned how to speak in a polished manner, listen attentively, engage in constructive discourse, and read other people’s expressions and body language. [32, 33] As my case shows, these skills can be learned, and once mastered, they open unimagined worlds. I have first-hand knowledge of how difficult it is to learn how to harness the power of free expression. I also believe that Mr. Branch and Cornelians of color are strong. You will not be in this alone, good sir; in my view, we can all benefit from sharpening our communication skills!
In closing, I want to thank Mr. Branch for exercising his right to free speech through his essay. I admire the moral courage that he demonstrated by sharing these views. I also appreciate the opportunity he thus provided for important discussions, and potentially an alternative way in which the administration can support free expression and discourse.
Sincerely,
Carl Schaeffer
References
1. CSLD. What is Hyperlexia? In: Center for Speech and Language Disorders [Internet]. [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.csld.org/HyperlexiaDefinition.htm
2. King M. “Suffering and Faith.” In: The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute [Internet]. Apr 1960 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/suffering_and_faith.1.html
3. Frankl VE. Man’s Search For Meaning. Pocket Books; 1985.
4. Bigelow W. “Infantilized” College Students Need “Safe Spaces” to Avoid Scary Free Speech. In: Breitbart [Internet]. Mar 2015 [cited Apr 2016]. Available: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/23/infantilized-college-students-need-safe-spaces-to-avoid-scary-free-speech/
5. Shulevitx J. In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas. In: The New York Times [Internet]. Mar 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html
6. Lukianoff G, Haidt J. The Coddling of the American Mind. In: The Atlantic [Internet]. Sep 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
7. Stambor Z. How laughing leads to learning. Monitor on Psychology. 2006;37: 62.
8. Powers T. Engaging Students With Humor. In: Association for Psychological Science [Internet]. Dec 2005 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2005/december-05/engaging-students-with-humor.html
9. Jackson A. Famous Harvard professor says “Sense of humor has disappeared from college campuses.” In: Business Insider [Internet]. Jan 2016 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-criticizes-student-protesters-for-losing-sense-of-humor-2016-1
10. Marano HE. Where Did Colleges Go Wrong? In: Psychology Today [Internet]. Oct 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201510/where-did-colleges-go-wrong
11. Majeed A. Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy. papers.ssrn.com; 2009; Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1508047
12. Otterson J. 15 Comedians Who Were Under Fire Over Jokes: Stephen Colbert, Amy Schumer and Trevor Noah. In: The Wrap [Internet]. Aug 2015 [cited Mar 2016]. Available: http://www.thewrap.com/15-comedians-who-got-in-trouble-for-telling-jokes-stephen-colbert-amy-schumer-george-carlin/
13. Donnelly M, Zerbib K. Comedians Dump Campus Gigs: When Did Colleges Lose Their Sense of Humor? In: The Wrap [Internet]. Aug 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.thewrap.com/comedians-avoiding-campus-when-did-universities-lose-their-sense-of-humor/
14. Mance H. Student intolerance of “incorrect” thinking imperils free speech. In: Financial Times [Internet]. Dec 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/d234163c-a7f9-11e5-955c-1e1d6de94879
15. Bauer F. The Left and “Discriminating Tolerance.” In: National Review [Internet]. Jun 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420094/herbert-marcuse-and-new-intolerance
16. Sowell T. Resurgence of Intolerance. In: Creators Syndicate [Internet]. Dec 2015 [cited Feb 2016]. Available: https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/12/15/a-resurgence-of-intolerance
17. Friedersdorf C. The New Intolerance of Student Activism. In: The Atlantic [Internet]. Nov 2015 [cited Mar 2016]. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
18. Truman H. Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States. In: The American Presidency Project [Internet]. Aug 1950 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13576
19. Membership UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In: The United Nations [Internet]. Dec 1948 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
20. Amnesty International Membership. Freedom of Expression. In: Amnesty International [Internet]. [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/censorship-and-free-speech
21. Robbins SP. From the Editor—Sticks and Stones: Trigger Warnings, Microaggressions, and Political Correctness. J Soc Work Educ. 2016;52: 1–5.
22. Cornell College. Cornell College Mission Statement. In: Cornell College [Internet]. May 2012 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.cornellcollege.edu/student-affairs/compass/mission-statement/index.shtml
23. Cornell College. Speech & Assembly/Disruptive Behavior. In: Cornell college [Internet]. [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.cornellcollege.edu/student-affairs/compass/student-policies-information/community-speech--assemblydisruptive-behavior.shtml
24. Haiman F. The Remedy is More Speech. In: The American Prospect [Internet]. Summer 1991 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech
25. Yiannopoulos. Milo Yiannopoulos on why sunlight is the best disinfectant. In: Youtube [Internet]. May 2016 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7DuqH7zE7s
26. Pinker S. Three Reasons Fee Speech Matters. In: Foundation for Economic Education [Internet]. [cited May 2016]. Available: https://fee.org/articles/three-reasons-free-speech-matters/
27. Cr4ovitz G. Chicago School of Free Speech. In: The Wall Street Journal [Internet]. Nov 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=chicago%20school%20of%20free%20speech
28. Marano HE. Crisis U. In: Psychology Today [Internet]. Sep 2015 [cited Jun 2016]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201509/crisis-u
29. Flanagan C. That’s Not Funny! In: The Atlantic [Internet]. Sep 2015 [cited May 2016]. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/
30. Tepfenhart O. Generation Awkward: Why So Many Millennials Are Failing Socially. In: Woman Around Town [Internet]. Oct 2014 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.womanaroundtown.com/sections/living-around/generation-awkward-why-so-many-millennials-are-failing-socially
31. Watson E. Are Millennials a Socially Awkward Generation? In: Diverse Issues in Higher Education [Internet]. Mar 2015 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://diverseeducation.com/article/71222/
32. Murphy B. 12 Speaking Habits That Make Millennials Sound, Like, Literally Unprofessional. In: Inc. [Internet]. Oct 2015 [cited Sep 2016]. Available: http://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/12-speaking-habits-that-make-millennials-sound-like-literally-unprofessional.html
33. Wolpert S. In our digital world are young people losing the ability to read emotions. In: UCLA Newsroom [Internet]. Aug 2014 [cited Jun 2016]. Available: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/in-our-digital-world-are-young-people-losing-the-ability-to-read-emotions