Free Speech at Columbia is Alive and Well
Just look around you.
If free speech is under attack at Columbia, it faces not rifle fire but the entire cavalry. Students and professors are silenced, outcasted, and suspended for speaking their minds. A stultifying bureaucracy reigns over every exchange and only permits the “official” narrative.
That’s the picture one might have from the outside. That’s the picture one might even have from inside the institution, judging from Columbia’s dismal placement on last year and this year’s FIRE College Free Speech Rankings.
Except this picture does not reflect reality, and the account itself undermines free speech by spreading an interminable fear. I offer a counter-narrative: I argue that the great tradition of free speech on this campus is far from dead. It is as alive and well as it has always been.
Let me first address the critics, who will argue that free speech is dead because certain topics are simply off-limits on this campus. Certain viewpoints seem impossible to express in this environment without facing significant pushback: rejecting climate change, refusing to buy into so-called “gender ideology,” or speaking up on the growing tide of immigration. Most often, students with conservative views are the ones who feel unable to express their views, quite simply because they are usually in the minority on these issues.
But this sentiment is not confined to conservatives: Many students have called out the University’s administration for what they see as arbitrary responses to pro-Palestine protests. They might cite the recent suspension and eviction of students who organized the unauthorized pro-Palestinian “Resistance 101” event as the latest instance. Then come the voices of select faculty and professors, who on more than one occasion have uttered concerns over what they see as an environment increasingly hostile to free speech and academic freedom. “There are certain perspectives,” one professor in a STEM field told me, “that are quite simply off the table if I am to continue going about my work.”
These are very real problems. Progress requires that we assess ideas on their own merits, which is only possible if people feel confident to voice those merits in the first place. Yet we might view pushback as an equal and opposite part of the same free speech equation: You have a right to voice your ideas, others have the right to respond, even if they are shocked or wish to disassociate from you.
A right to free speech does not mean that your ideas will be accepted, nor does it mean that there will be no consequences to your actions. “For as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement," Thomas Jefferson wrote, recognizing the link between speech and consequence. In this light, we should not view the pushback students and faculty experience for expressing controversial ideas as a sign that free speech is dead. Quite the contrary, we should recognize that this is the process by which we validate and understand different ideas in the marketplace.
Furthermore, we must recognize that free speech at Columbia applies beyond the classroom. For a complete analysis of the state of free speech, look toward events hosted by campus organizations, dining hall discussions, and regular demonstrations on the Butler Lawns. From this perspective, Columbia’s free speech problem seems a lot less severe. Controversial debates occur all around us, just not always in a conventional classroom setting. The truth is that anyone who wants to start their own student organization can do so and get funding so long as they respect the (pretty reasonable) guidelines established by the University and student governing boards. Had Columbia truly abandoned its ideals of free speech, the steps of Low Library would never have been filled with the intense political demonstrations we have seen coming from both sides over the last few months, nor could a publication like this one have existed to report on them.
In analyzing the state of free speech, we also cannot ignore the role of interpersonal relationships. It is easy to understand why conservatives feel under attack, especially if they perceive themselves to be in the minority. Yet the reality doesn’t quite match the rhetoric: One can be a conservative at Columbia and still have friends, attend classes, and form strong relationships with professors. For the most part, this is true across the political spectrum.
Step back a little, youthful deliberator. Recognize that while there are many things Columbia could do to improve free speech, this continues to be a place where lively debate can take place. Recognize that at least some of this school’s over 9,000 undergraduates have a genuine desire to learn and debate. It’s all about finding those people.
Finally, I urge students to recognize that the very rhetoric claiming that free speech is “dead” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Repeat it too much, and more and more people may come to believe it. As a result, students’ willingness to speak up will be chilled, thus risking the actual death of free speech. Cancel culture works through fear so that people never speak out in the first place.
For example, I believe that conservatives will find that many students hold similar views as them on taxation, immigration, and policing if they simply talk to more students. It's the thought that one is in the minority that holds you—and everyone else with the same views—back from speaking out, leading to the illusion that everyone holds opposing views. You can still speak your mind and you should speak your mind as long as you can justify what you’re saying. More speech, almost by definition, solves the free speech problem. Perpetuating the false narrative that free speech is already dead creates a self-fulfilling cycle by which free speech actually comes to die.
To all those who continue to believe that free speech isn’t entirely doomed at this school, I will conclude with a plea: Speak your mind, be brave, and dare to disagree with someone. The future of free speech at Columbia depends on you.
Mr. Lehodey is a junior at the School of General Studies in the SciencesPo dual degree program majoring in economics and philosophy.
 | A guest post by
|