U of C alum once again advocates disruption of free speech with no punishment

Here we go again: University of Chicago alumnus Matthew Andersson, who got a degree from our business school in 1996, has written a letter to the student newspaper trying to counter my own letter of February 22 that promoted free speech on campus.

We’ve met Andersson twice before, as he’s written two letters to the Chicago Maroon defending and promoting disruption of speech and whining about the University imposing punishments for those who violate campus regulations by disrupting talks (see here and here). I’ve put up a post critiquing each letter (here and here, respectively).

Andersson’s arguments have always been muddled, for he claims that disrupting a speaker is the best way to promote discussion (seriously?), and that students should be able to violate university regulations without any fear of punishment. (Last year the University affirmed that those who disrupt campus activities, including speech, are subject to discipline.)

Supporting his “no punishment” stand, Andersson cites the civil rights protests of the Sixties and civil disobedience against the Vietnam War, conveniently forgetting that civil disobedience is designed to violate the law and provoke arrests as a way of calling attention to the protestors’ plights. Further, the protests he cites were peaceful ones, in contrast to some of the more recent protests that Andersson likes.

Andersson has thus argued that because of their salutary effects on promoting discussion and social change, disruptive protesters should not be punished but rewarded for their contributions to “free speech”, which of course goes against the entire purpose of civil disobedience. If the Birmingham protestors or lunch counter integrationists had been given bouquets of flowers instead of being assaulted by cops (and racists) and dragged off to jail, they would not have received the attention they did.

Andersson’s lack of clear thinking has led him to statements like this:

In particular, the University’s commitment to open discourse has led it to unjustifiably punish those who interfere with the implementation of free speech policies.

“Interfere”, of course”, means “disrupt” or “shut down.”

Now Andersson has returned, once again defending students’ right to disrupt. His new letter, which is an explicit response to mine, can be seen at the link below (click on screenshot):

If I had just three words to respond to this misguided screed, they’d be “No it isn’t.”  But of course we all know there are exceptions to the right to speak without government interference: harassment, libel, inciting clear and present danger, and so on. So let’s look at a few of Andersson’s statements. I’ll be brief, as his letter is short. Nevertheless, in just a few words Andersson makes three misleading claims (his words are indented):

1.) The University is committed to suppressing free speech by punishing students who speak out. 

 As expressed in written documents, the University’s position appears to be not so much about ratifying the right to speak as it is about suppressing the instinct to speak out. This is a potential result of its articulated commitment to punish students (in the form of scholarship cancellation, academic probation, and expulsion) found in violation of its particular interpretations of acceptable behavior.

What can somebody say about this? The University encourages people to speak out, just in a way that doesn’t shut down somebody else. The promotion of free discourse depends on being able to say what you want, and then allowing others to challenge you. You can do that without violating University regulations, including picketing talks outside the venue, handing out pamplets, asking questions, and promulgating counter speech. Apparently those are not sufficient for Andersson.

As for punishments “found in violation of its particular interpretations of acceptable behavior,” well, read the University policy for yourself. “Its particular interpretations” are not some wonky set of guidelines, but this:

Statute 21 defines disruptive conduct to include, among other things, “obstruction, impairment or interference with University sponsored or authorized activities or facilities in a manner that is likely to or does deprive others of the benefit or activity of the activity of facility”

Andersson could, of course, criticize any punishment, in civil law or otherwise, as “violating its particular interpretations of acceptable behavior”. That’s just a weaselly way of dismissing regulations without giving any reasons.

2.) Banning Bannon does not suppress any of his rights. 

Professor Coyne surely advances good counsel by recommending that students sustain tolerance and an open mind in the presence of others who they may disagree with (an added benefit for faculty and administration alike). Often, there is indeed much to learn. But in the case of professional provocateurs such as Steve Bannon, it would be difficult to imagine how his rights might actually be suppressed, especially among the numerous channels for expression he already enjoys.

This is a fancy way of saying, “Yes, we should be able to listen to those whose words we don’t like, but Steve Bannon isn’t one of those. Besides, Bannon can speak anywhere, so he doesn’t need to speak here.”  But Bannon is not a “professional provocateur”, another carefully chosen Weasel Characterization designed to distinguish Bannon from those who really mean what they say. But Bannon does mean what he says, regardless of how offensive Andersson finds it. Hidden in this paragraph is the notion that Andersson is The Decider—the one person qualified to determine which speakers should be banned, de-platformed, or disrupted on campus. Well excuse me, but I’d prefer to let Bannon speak than let Mr. Andersson tell us which speech is acceptable here and which is just “provocation”.

3.) Disrupting speech, perhaps including violence, is an educational opportunity.

In my experience, free speech philosophy isn’t so much an a priori position one needs to take, or a set of rules, guidelines, contracts, codes, or comportment. Rather, it’s a readiness to act, and a willingness to lead. If political issues provide students with an initial impetus to publicly engage, that is a pedagogically productive opportunity that may expand into broader, more complex civic issues in a student’s life, ranging from environmental challenges to armed conflict, and the general dangers that can emanate from authority.

This is the weirdest interpretation of “free speech” I’ve ever heard (Andersson loves to re-define terms). Now it’s not 100% clear, given Andersson’s poor ability to write, that what he’s saying is justifying occasional armed conflict or merely protesting armed conflict on the part of others. But it’s been clear all along that he feels students should be able to interfere and obstruct University activities, and suffer neither arrest, detainment, or punishment for that. Andersson’s University would be one involved in continual disruption and fracas, affording no opportunity for People Not Approved By Andersson to speak.

It’s sad when not only a lot of our faculty and students, but also our graduates, like Andersson, hold such a tortuous and misguided view of how discourse should be promoted (and restricted) at a university. We’ve clearly not educated them about at least one important issue.