The podcast features Greg Lukianoff, Alex Morey, and Ronnie London from FIRE discussing the Israel-Hamas conflict's impact on free speech on college campuses. They address the importance of distinguishing between protected and unprotected speech, the challenges of institutional neutrality, and the use of double standards in speech codes and censorship. They also talk about accusations, free speech, and incidents of censorship and destruction of pro-Israel posters.
Engaging in productive discussion and persuasion is essential for progress and the exchange of ideas.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has sparked intense debate and challenges for free speech on college campuses.
Institutional neutrality should prioritize student and faculty rights, supporting free expression amidst diverse opinions and contentious issues.
Deep dives
The Importance of Persuasion and Avoiding Silencing
It is important to engage in productive discussion and persuasion when it comes to ideas and beliefs, rather than silencing others who hold different viewpoints. Silencing others can hinder progress and prevent the open exchange of ideas and opinions.
The Effect of the Israel-Hamas Conflict on Free Speech on Campus
The Israel-Hamas conflict has resulted in heightened tensions on college campuses and has become a topic of intense debate. The divide between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine sentiments has created challenges for free speech and resulted in cases where speech on both sides has been reported and investigated.
The Need for Institutional Neutrality and Protection of Student and Faculty Rights
The conversation around institutional neutrality has gained prominence, with the recognition that colleges and universities should focus on supporting student and faculty discussions rather than taking direct political and social positions. It is crucial to prioritize student and faculty rights and uphold the principles of free expression, even amidst diverse opinions and contentious issues.
The Protection of Advocating Violence Philosophically
Advocating violence philosophically is considered protected speech as long as it does not directly incite imminent violence or lawless activity. This protection applies regardless of whether the advocate means it literally or hyperbolically. However, contextual factors such as chasing someone while yelling violent statements or repeatedly harassing someone can change the nature of the speech and potentially lead to legal consequences.
The Controversy Surrounding Statements and Repercussions
Following the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack, there were varying reactions from colleges and students. Some demanded condemnation of the attack, while others expressed support for Hamas or blamed Israel. These statements led to repercussions, such as rescinded job offers and donor backlash. The situation raises questions about free speech rights, cancel culture, and the line between offensive speech and protected expression.
The FIRE team gets together to discuss the October 7 attacks in Israel and the resulting censorship on college campuses in the United States.
FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff, Director of Campus Rights Advocacy Alex Morey, and General Counsel Ronnie London join host Nico Perrino for the conversation.
** We will conduct a listener survey starting Monday, Nov. 13. “So to Speak” listeners who subscribe to the show’s email list will receive an email with a link to the survey. If you are not an email subscriber, you can subscribe at the bottom of sotospeakpodcast.com or by subscribing to the general FIRE email list at thefire.org and noting that you would also like to subscribe to the “So to Speak” list. We appreciate your feedback: It will help us improve the show!
Timestamps
5:13 - October 7 attacks on Israel
6:04 - Greg’s initial thoughts
14:58 - Alex’s initial thoughts
20:29 - Protected vs. unprotected expression
28:11 - Statements from donors, students and faculty; double standards
40:49 - Institutional neutrality and the Kalven Report
51:01 - Combating Anti-Semitism, the Daryl Davis example