The Supreme Value: Why Free Speech Is Paramount On College Campuses

“Knowledge is power,” is a ubiquitous aphorism in modern society. As George Washington–our university’s namesake–once said, “Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.” The exalted status of knowledge in society is remarkably recent. Not until the Enlightenment–or as it’s also known–the Age of Reason (17th-18th centuries) did knowledge become such a vaunted commodity so essential to human flourishing. It is no coincidence that the period in which reason and free expression wrenched much of religion’s stranglehold on thought and public discourse marked the beginning of 200-fold growth in the global economy. Anecdotally, the Vatican-imposed house arrest of Galileo–arguably the progenitor of modern science and with it the Enlightenment–marked the symbolic turning point in which science percolated into the intellectual realm. In modern times, the champions of political correctness have inherited the derisive and censorial role of religious insititutions.[su_pullquote align=”right”]It is no coincidence that the period in which reason and free expression wrenched much of religion’s stranglehold on thought and public discourse marked the beginning of 200-fold growth in the global economy.[/su_pullquote]

The new ideology that informs this movement toward censorship stems from the relatively new philosophy of Postmodernism which rejects many of the core principles of the Enlightenment, such as the assumption that objective reality, truth, morality, social progress, and reason itself exists and can be realized. Many university professors subscribe to this philosophy and are thus inculcating our generation with these ideas. Those who embrace Neo-Marxism, the newest version of socialism, are far more prone to adopt Postmodernism as a justification for their objective of rectifying the power imbalances in society. Predictably, Left-leaning professors are more inclined to be Neo-Marxist and are therefore more enamored by Postmodernism. As evidenced by data collected by Mitchell Langbert of the National Association of Scholars, Left-wing thinking is far more common among professors than in the past and leaves only the natural sciences and mathematics with some political heterogeneity.

Unfortunately, it is the youngest generation—my generation—which has most fervently embraced the ideology of political correctness. Due to no fault of our own, my cohort has been coddled by well-intentioned parents seeking to preclude our exposure to the perils of the outside world. This unprecedented fear among parents arose in the aftermath of several high-profile kidnappings of young children in the 1980’s and 1990’s. As adults we carried with us a demand for unprecedented safety from both psychological and physical harm. Now that many of us are college students, we have established the institution of higher education as the focal point of the malicious movement to censor speech.

Few issues on the college landscape are characterized by the level of contradiction, confusion, and emotion as that of the debate over unfettered speech in the public sphere. The debate is riddled with jargon such as “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “microaggressions” that seem bizarre and foreign to outside observers. While the issue of free speech on college campuses has always existed, this most recent iteration represents a particularly malignant strain of First Amendment encroachment.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]This assault represents not just an attack on the Enlightenment values which have elevated science and reason in society, but also an affront to the core principles and responsibilities of a university.[/su_pullquote]This assault represents not just an attack on the Enlightenment values which have elevated science and reason in society, but also an affront to the core principles and responsibilities of a university: to edify and nurture the next generation of professionals. In order maintain rigorous standards of inquiry and ensure that only the ideas which survive intense scrutiny are promulgated in universities (e.g. evolution, Newtonian, Relativistic and Quantum Physics, mathematical formulas, liberalism, etc.) students must be free to discuss ideas freely. New, politically correct restrictions on the crucial, unfettered exchange of ideas in the form of “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “microaggressions” compromise the university’s capacity to maintain benchmarks of academic excellence. For those who find this assertion exaggerated, consider the example of Harvard Law School. In recent years, student organizations have encouraged students not to attend lectures on rape and sexual violence law if the content could prove “triggering.” According to Harvard Law Professor Suk Gersen, legions of students have accosted professors with questions like “Can you not use the word ‘violate’ in class?” Some radical students have even asserted that Harvard should cease teaching rape law altogether for fear of reigniting trauma or a “second rape.” While the integrity of sexual violence law remains, will this continue when these discomfited students of today become the faculty members and college administrators of tomorrow?

[su_pullquote]Ultimately, “safe space” should mean a physically safe academic environment whereby students can engage in polite intellectual discourse as means of achieving group exposure therapy.[/su_pullquote]Proponents of this trend might argue that it is to betterment of the psychological well-being of victims of sexual violence and is thus morally justifiable. Such a claim–while oft spoken–demonstrates an ignorance of basic psychology that is buttressed by decades of empirical research. Any typical college introductory psychology course would include content on desensitization, which is the gradual decline in the sensitivity of an individual or individuals to a stimulus or stimuli. Desensitization typically occurs through a modified scenario of classical conditioning where one stimulus is systematically paired with a benign stimulus until the association between the initial stimulus (in this case, the “triggering” speech) and the originally paired noxious stimulus (residual trauma) is severed entirely. This approach in the clinical setting is widely called “exposure therapy,” and has an impressive record of success. Crucial to the success of this treatment, however, is the voluntary exposure on the part of the patient. If someone suffering from a phobia (typically precipitated by trauma) does not willingly undergo treatment, the results are the opposite. This requisite may be met–as it often is–through a detailed syllabus with information on the topics discussed in a course. Classes are perhaps among the most ideal environments for group exposure therapy; they are physically safe, voluntarily attended, and non-confining. The word “safe space” is a misnomer; these areas are no safer from danger than regular spaces. What is key is the co-opting of “safety” to mean “free from ideas which contravene deeply personal beliefs or one’s identity.”  Ultimately, “safe space” should mean a physically safe academic environment whereby students can engage in polite intellectual discourse as means of achieving group exposure therapy.

Most nefarious, however, are the incessant appeals to authority–such as university administrators or politicians–to maintain both a physically and psychologically benign environment for young people. As rational as this may seem prima facie, one must remember that in the minds of many of Generation Z (born during or after 1995), sources of psychological distress are not just physical, but also verbal. In other words, speech is sufficiently disconcerting for today’s youth to seek government intervention to restrict its dissemination. Much of the language spouted by this group, such as “harm,” “safe,” and even “trauma” implies or connotes physical violence. This illustrates a phenomenon in psychology known as “concept creep,” whereby violence is pathologized to such an extent as to encompass emotional or psychological discomfort. In every stable, democratic society, the government possesses the legal monopoly on violence—apart from self-defense–to maintain order and the rule of law. If the full danger of this trend has not yet sunk in, consider that if violence includes speech, then the government would suddenly attain legal jurisdiction over the regulation of speech. Even constitutional amendments may be replaced given sufficient political will. The government need only guarantee a “right to safety” for its citizens.

The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly protects freedom of expression, because the Founding Fathers presciently predicted its role in safeguarding the wellbeing of American society and recognized its importance in a functional democracy. Paradoxically, in the Information Age, we risk depriving ourselves of the unfettered flow of knowledge that informs proper public discourse. Even Wash U is not immune to the movement toward censorship. Recall the motto of this university: Per Veritatem Vis. Can we even boast of our strength through truth if that “truth” is a lie?

Johnathan Romero ’20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at johnathan.romero@wustl.edu.