Free Speech on College Campuses

The main reason that I haven’t written a book in the last few years is that I’ve come to understand that the issues thwarting environmental sustainability have relatively little to do with the technological and economic aspects of things like renewable energy, and almost everything to do with law and politics.  For instance, it’s very clear that our civilization is in possession of the tools necessary to generate low-cost, low-carbon energy, while greatly reducing the energy footprint associated with transportation, HVAC and lighting in our buildings, food production, and so forth.  Yet we’re a million miles from making that happen, and, in places like the U.S., we’re actively going backwards. Clean energy and climate change mitigation have, for reasons unknown, have come to be painted as “liberal” ideas, where “real patriots” burn fossil fuels–and the dirtier the better (“I am ending the war on coal!”).

Thus, I like to intermix the more interesting aspects of politics into the discussion here, and, to that end, let me comment on an event that just happened at my alma mater, Trinity College, surrounding free speech.

As it happens, there exists an organization called the Churchill Institute whose purpose is to promote the superiority of ‘Western’ ideas and civilization; according to its website, it is “dedicated to the preservation, dissemination and extension of the Western moral and philosophical tradition.” As reported here in the local Hartford Courant, Trinity’s student government, the group that apparently makes decisions on such matters, has rejected an application for the formation of a formal club on campus to be recognized by the college.

This seems to be a group that does not incite violence, but asserts the inferiority of other modes of thinking, learning, and living.  Conservatives will say that the college’s denying the club’s submission is precisely what’s wrong with higher education in general: that is it bans the free speech of all those who disagree with liberal politics. My take:

I don’t think anyone would contest the right for the Churchill Institute to exist, and to promote its values in most venues, but education institutions have a specific role in our society.  In particular, when we pay our tuition, we’re doing so based on our trust that we are being exposed to the best possible thinking in each discipline we study.  For instance, we don’t have science courses in flat-Earth theory or creationism or climate change denial.  We aren’t taught that genocide or eugenics are valid approaches to societal betterment, or that slavery was a legitimate institution.  We don’t have Holocaust-denial courses in our history departments.  By contrast, there is something important that we do expect when we write that big check each semester, and that’s the concept that there are many different, equally valid ways of life, and the role of higher education is not to take sides.

Having gone through the philosophy at stake, perhaps this comes down to something more obvious and less nuanced: racism.  The Churchill Institute’s claim that Western Civilization is ‘under attack,’ is as close to overt racism as you’re going to find absent of burning a cross.  Colleges reject racism, but free-speech-at-all-cost advocates challenge their right to do so.  In the above case at Trinity, “Students have expressed concern that the Institute, named after a known racist, imperialist, and white supremacist, reinforces the daily marginalization of many students on campus.”

What the college did here seems reasonable, though obviously, this is highly controversial.  There is no incitement of violence; it’s not like this is a chapter of the KKK.  There are also cases that lie somewhere in the middle; e.g., if only out of fear of being sued, some universities allow white supremacist Milo Yiannopoulos to come on campus and blast hate speech at their students.

Again, I admit that this is controversial; what you have here is simply one man’s opinion.