The College Fix

Shaun Carver | Minding the Campus

University faculty and staff face one of the oldest problems on campus: what free speech means. Our students are entering an extraordinarily polarized world that encourages them to think only in binary terms: yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong. It is our responsibility to equip them with the critical thinking skills to navigate this world, not to indoctrinate them.

We cannot teach people to be critical thinkers if we do not allow for different opinions, views, and belief systems on campus and in classrooms. To forbid expressing other views risks indoctrinating students instead of educating them. Indoctrinated students have no room to question, challenge, debate, or defend positions on complex issues—in fact, it leaves no room to even fathom that other perspectives may exist.

In the real world, issues are seldom as polarized as the media portrays. For example, at the International House at UC Berkeley (I-House), we have Israeli and Palestinian residents who feel strongly in their opinion about the current conflict; we also have people who support Israel but are not happy with the way their government is handling the war. Other residents support the Palestinians but disagree with the actions of Hamas. Some people really do not understand the history of the conflict and want to become better informed. Still, others are more concerned with the millions of people displaced and facing starvation due to the civil war in Sudan. So not only are issues not always binary, but whether a particular issue is the most important is a matter of perspective.

Navigating these thorny topics has become so difficult on campus that allowing different perspectives seems almost impossible in classrooms. Encountering different ways of thinking is essential to students’ developing critical thinking skills, but many don’t feel comfortable speaking up. In a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), 25 percent of students reported feeling pressure not to discuss controversial topics, and 20 percent say they self-censor.

The First Amendment should protect them, but it only goes so far on private campuses compared to public ones, which further muddies the waters. 21 percent of students in the same survey said that their institution’s free speech policies were unclear. 27 percent “reported that it is unlikely their college administration would defend a speaker’s right to express his or her views if a controversy occurred on campus.” Students don’t know what they can say or what to expect from administrations as a response, so they don’t say anything at all.

In other circumstances, students may feel they must confront things they believe to be wrong and convince people to their side, but this approach can go too far. The ACLU writes, “Confronting, hearing, and countering offensive speech is an important skill, and it should be considered a core requirement at any school worth its salt.”

If we are trying to bridge differences and build understanding, as we are at I-House, confronting seems like a particularly strong word. It seems to argue that there is a “right” view, and everyone else needs to be convinced—exactly the type of intellectual arrogance we must avoid. Instead, discussing, and yes, debating, helps students view their own beliefs in a more nuanced light. Developing this sense of nuance is essential to understanding the world we live in.

If our goal truly is education, not indoctrination, then we must ask ourselves: how can we understand someone’s position if we are unwilling to listen to them? We can’t. However, listening to and platforming has become conflated with agreeing with someone. Again, we face a binary choice instead of a nuanced understanding.

The ability to express controversial opinions without expecting agreement must become more common. On the flip side, those expressing these opinions must understand that being questioned is not an attack or a criticism but an attempt to understand. Disagreeing does not make one person wrong and the other person right. It means you differ in those beliefs. And it is by weighing our beliefs that we grow as people. Too often, we think criticism is only negative, but If we do not teach students to weigh things against each other—the neutral meaning of criticism—what are we teaching them? What is our role?

The dean of Berkeley’s School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, summed up what our role is not: “It’s not our role to make them safe from ideas that they don’t want to be exposed to. But that line, I think, has gotten blurred.” If we operate from that premise, our next question is: how do we unblur that line? Do we focus only on the First Amendment, the kind of “hard-nosed constitutionalism” that once prevailed and left vulnerable student populations in the cold? Surely that can’t be the right path forward. But how do we even start building spaces where free speech is respected on campus?

Make no mistake: building these places is difficult, but it is possible. At I-House Berkeley, we have faced protests since our founding about mixed-race and mixed-gender housing, ending segregation, interracial marriage, and more. We have weathered all these issues and more on our way to our 100th anniversary.

Civility is the bedrock on which I-House stands—and we actively work to keep it strong. We start with clear policies, procedures, and explanations in our student handbook. We then explain why things are the way they are: “Our policies and conduct system are designed to foster a house that promotes respect and care for everyone.” We then take it a step further; we provide ways to learn more through educational awareness programs and initiatives. We want residents to see each other as people first, not as opinions to be defeated.

There is a famous story from I-House that displays what this approach can produce. At the Sunday Supper immediately following September 11, 2011, one of the attending residents, with emotion clear in their voice, shared the following: “If the world saw the map like I see the map, my friend Carlos from Mexico, Sebastian from France, Ahmad from Palestine, Shlomie from Israel, etc… 9-11 would never have happened.”

Another testimonial on display in the house shares the story of a white South African student who met a Black South African student at the end of apartheid. She was initially apprehensive to even speak with him—afraid she’d come off as insincere, patronizing, or prejudiced. Instead, they built a friendship. The white student concludes: “Why did we both have to come thousands of miles from home to get to know each other? Why was I always so afraid?”

If we want more young people to see the world through open eyes like these students, we must encourage them to see others as people. If we want to help them develop critical thinking skills, we must encourage healthy and civil discussion. If we want them to develop a sense of nuance to navigate today’s world, we must allow them to question, debate, and discuss—even and especially if they disagree. Without these supports, we risk students falling into the false security of indoctrinated belief.

Originally published on October 8, 2024 by Minding the Campus.

MORE: Chemists rip ‘feminism’ STEM class proposal

IMAGE: I-House Berkeley/YouTube

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter