,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1) Short thread: This is why I argued in 2017 that distinguishing between free speech objectives and academic (academic freedom, truth-seeking, rigor) objectives is a good idea.
2) I wouldn’t try to block or ban someone like D’Souza from speaking on campus. I’d just argue: don’t invite him. Don’t give him a platform that lends him unearned and unjustified credibility.
3) Just as you shouldn’t invite a climate denier to lecture on atmospheric science. Not doing so doesn’t mean you’re against free speech.
4) There are many such examples wherein the truth-seeking objective is actually at odds with the free speech objective. That’s a legit conflict between two exceptionally noble values. Nothing to sneeze at, nor to reduce to ‘you’re against free speech!!!’
5) It’s not unreasonable that eg Goldman Sachs doesn’t invite a Marxist agitator to address the floor every Tuesday before trading commences. Perhaps that’s not the best venue for such things.
6) If you’re unwilling to consider institutional missions and objectives and time, place, manner restrictions on speech for GS, the US Senate, the movie theatre, etc., but not the university, you’re a hypocrite.
7) That’s not to say the challenges of all these are or should be the same, but that they’re prominent examples of mission-driven institutions—from the grandiose to the quotidian—that have uncontroversial speech restrictions.
8) That’s all. Nothing particularly new or insightful here; just a reminder that if you’re gung-ho about truth, reason, etc., maybe think more about how turning universities into peanut galleries could be antithetical to your aims. /end
