OP-ED: Speech on campus must be handled with responsibility

By: Albert Cahn

Posted: 9/5/06

In the aftermath of last semester's Palestinian Art controversy, it is essential that the students of this University have a serious discussion about freedom of speech on campus.

Unlike many who have commented on this matter-in which an exhibition of art by Palestinian children displayed in the Goldfarb Library was shut down by administrators-I do not think that the removal was motivated by a nefarious agenda, or done with malice. The individuals who chose to remove the works sincerely believed that retaining the exhibit would be far worse than removing it, and I know that they sincerely regret the hurt and fallout that ensued.

Rather than pointing fingers, we should take this opportunity to discuss how open we want speech and expression to be on this campus, and when, if ever, the administration should curb it. Hopefully, many of you will agree that those standards should be broader and better defined than those found within the University's code of Rights and Responsibilities.

Brandeis has no official "speech code," but there are several sections of Rights and Responsibilities pertaining to harassment that effectively constitute one. Regrettably, these portions have grown more voluminous and ill-defined in recent years, placing a greater potential limit on free speech and expression.

Section 7.4 of Rights and Responsibilities states, "It is regarded as harassment when conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a person's education or work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment in which to work, study or live."

Such broad language means community members can bring forth claims of harassment simply because they are offended by what other people say, regardless of how foreseeable or rational the the offense is. It would seem that the dream-if not the goal-behind such a policy is to create a university where we live in perfect harmony and no one is offended… but that is not my dream.

Brandeis must be a place where all people-regardless of their race, religion or beliefs about Israel and Palestine-will feel safe and free to express their views. Rather than limiting controversial speech, the administration should work to empower those with dissenting viewpoints and embrace the educational value of such impassioned discussion.

I am not advocating mindless vitriol; we should all be respectful in our discourse out of empathy for those around us. Adults in our society generally try not to offend others because of self-restraint, not rules and speech codes. Why should college be treated so differently?

It's clear that Brandeis will always have rules to prohibit some forms of speech. The merits of such a restriction aside, it would not be possible for Brandeis to allow for all speech, including the most offensive sort of hate rhetoric, without opening itself up to civil liability.

Proceeding with the premise that we will have some sort of limit on expression, it is essential that whatever regulations we have are viewpoint-neutral, that they are blind to which side of a debate any one speaker may be on. A rule that in practice favors one ideology over competing ones is far more repulsive than having no restriction at all.

Not too long ago, it would have been comforting to know the administration was there to help shield us from those offensive, objectionable elements on this campus. I saw how the extremist firebrands brought to campus by certain organizations would upset some of my closest friends, and I would have been tempted to request that such speeches and events be shut down.

But now it seems clear that cost of such a remedy-the price of suppressing distasteful speech-is far too high to be tolerated.

The writer is the Student Union's senior representative to the Board of Trustees.