糖心传媒

A Rochester political scientist explains why the 糖心传媒榗lash of ideas糖心传媒� resulting from free speech is necessary for a well-functioning university.

In September, the released a survey of undergraduates on college campuses across the United States in an effort to gauge the state of free speech and expression in American higher education. Recruiting students from the American College Student Panel, the organization sought to measure how comfortable students were in discussing controversial topics in various campus settings; how tolerant they were of campus speakers whose views were offensive to liberals; how tolerant they were of campus speakers whose views were offensive to conservatives; and how well or how poorly their institutions糖心传媒� administration did in supporting a culture of free expression.

Among those polled were 250 students. Twenty-seven percent of the Rochester cohort said that they hesitate 糖心传媒渇airly often糖心传媒� or 糖心传媒渧ery often糖心传媒� to express an opinion out of fear of their professors糖心传媒� or classmates糖心传媒� reaction. The situation is not unique to Rochester; it exists on many US college campuses and follows a national trend, the survey found.

, the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and a professor of and of business administration at the University of Rochester, has made promoting free speech and expression a pedagogical priority糖心传媒攂ringing guests from across the political spectrum to his classes and teaching an undergraduate course devoted to the topic, . Primo also directs the Politics and Markets Project, an initiative he created in 2014 to encourage robust but civil discussions about contentious policy issues.

During a recent campus event, Primo urged universities to remain steadfast in their historical role as places of discussion and dissent. The 糖心传媒渃lash of ideas is the foundation for a college education. Without that you can糖心传媒檛 have a well-functioning university,糖心传媒� he said. 糖心传媒淚deas that shape the world often emerge from college campuses.糖心传媒�

Fortunately, in the United States free speech is legally enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and many private universities (which are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way as public universities are) have explicit commitments to support free speech and free inquiry on their campuses. 糖心传媒淚n other words, students have the right to speak freely, debate speech, and also protest against speech they don糖心传媒檛 agree with,糖心传媒� Primo explained. 糖心传媒淥f course, some universities do a better job than others of living up to these ideals.糖心传媒�

Even at universities that uphold the principles of free expression, problems arise, according to Primo, when faculty and students become unwilling to express their own ideas or challenge each other糖心传媒檚. Primo argues the fear of being professionally or socially ostracized is often on the minds of those with unorthodox or unpopular perspectives.

So, what happens when students think they can糖心传媒檛 speak freely糖心传媒攖o professors, administration, staff, or each other?

糖心传媒淎 fear of speaking out means that important ideas may not be heard, important discoveries may not be made, and the boundaries of knowledge may not be pushed,糖心传媒� Primo said. 糖心传媒淭hat kind of self-censorship can also extend to faculty members and influence the kind of research projects they pursue, or feel they ought to pursue. The acceptable range of ideas narrows more than it should.糖心传媒�

Read on for more highlights from Primo糖心传媒檚 remarks.

1. Heeding John Stuart Mill on the importance of 糖心传媒榯he heretics糖心传媒�

糖心传媒淵ou may say there are some people who just shouldn’t be able to speak糖心传媒攖hose crazy people on the left and those crazy people on the right. The 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill had a name for these people糖心传媒攈e糖心传媒檇 call them the heretics, which was particularly appropriate given when he was writing, but I would argue is still appropriate now.糖心传媒�

Primo outlined three guiding principles on disagreement, distilled from Mill糖心传媒檚 1859 treatise, :

• We should care about disagreement. We should interact with those we disagree with because we could be wrong. Otherwise we are assuming we糖心传媒檙e infallible.
• You might understand your views on a contentious issue at a deeper level if you talk to someone who disagrees with you. It pushes you to understand your own ideas and positions better, and to learn to understand theirs.
• Society is going to make progress through error. That糖心传媒檚 the hallmark of science: we have to be open to error and have ideas clash so that we can take the best parts of these ideas and move forward with knowledge generation.

2. On 糖心传媒榓ffective polarization,糖心传媒� or when politics became your identity

糖心传媒淲hen people糖心传媒檚 political convictions become their identity糖心传媒攖he blue team versus the red team糖心传媒攖hat糖心传媒檚 what we political scientists call 糖心传媒榓ffective polarization.糖心传媒� Practically speaking, that means if I know that you糖心传媒檙e a Democrat, I generally know much more about you than I would糖心传媒檝e known 30 years ago. Same if I know you糖心传媒檙e a Republican. As a result, we糖心传媒檝e seen a rise in this idea that we don糖心传媒檛 like somebody because they support the other party. In other words, it糖心传媒檚 not just that we disagree with people on the other side; it糖心传媒檚 that we actively dislike them as people because of their ideology or party affiliation.

糖心传媒淐ollege students today are practicing affective polarization. In an a couple of months ago, nearly half of all college students said they wouldn糖心传媒檛 room with somebody of a different political party. We ought to be figuring out exactly why that is糖心传媒攁nd how we can fix it.糖心传媒�

3. Responding to disinformation on social media

糖心传媒淭here are serious issues with false information糖心传媒檚 being transmitted on social media, but that糖心传媒檚 something that we have to manage rather than regulate. Because if governments start limiting what can be said on social media, and if governments start regulating how social media companies moderate what糖心传媒檚 allowed on their platforms, it becomes a slippery slope. Where then do you draw the line?

糖心传媒淲hen I think about restrictions on speech, I think about whether I would want those restrictions to exist when somebody I disagree with fundamentally is in a position of power. Because then they糖心传媒檙e the ones who are going to control whether or not I can speak.糖心传媒�

4. Avoiding the 糖心传媒榥oise糖心传媒� of MSNBC and Fox News

糖心传媒淪tudents need to cut through the noise and yelling on channels like MSNBC and Fox News and instead focus on having rigorous, courteous, civil debates. They should be shown why it糖心传媒檚 important to care about the fact that we, as a society, are currently not disagreeing effectively.

糖心传媒淚n class we have vigorous and valuable discussions, which signals to me that there糖心传媒檚 a lot of support for the idea of open disagreement on college campuses. That糖心传媒檚 why I am worried about the 27 percent of students who feel they can糖心传媒檛 speak out. But I糖心传媒檓 also heartened by the fact that we still have a tremendous number of students who are deeply engaged, who are willing to explore ideas. So, if we can help support them within the University then, that糖心传媒檚 going to help because students are the ones who糖心传媒檒l be going out into society; they糖心传媒檙e the ones who are going to be making the decisions and running the show in a few years. That糖心传媒檚 why it糖心传媒檚 vitally important they learn those skills here.糖心传媒�

5. Encouraging free speech among students糖心传媒攁nd supporting one another

糖心传媒淪tudents need to be supportive of each other as they explore ideas. On the first day of my seminar courses, I work with the students to set class norms and talk about the terms of debate in our class. One of the things we agreed upon this semester was that you can discuss outside of class what was said in class but not attribute specific ideas to specific people. I want students to be free to explore ideas without worrying that in two hours糖心传媒� time what they just said in class would appear somewhere on social media. We want to have a truly safe space for the discussion of ideas without this fear. Of course, I can糖心传媒檛 police whether students live up to these ideals. But I think the fact that students supported this ground rule shows that you can create this foundation to build up agreement to disagree on college campuses.

糖心传媒淲hen the heretics get to speak, I am reassured that we are protecting the right for all of us to express ourselves freely.糖心传媒�

Read more