Unlike the narrative spun by many on the national stage, the death of free expression on Emory’s campus is greatly exaggerated. The media’s attention was pervasive and reductive — it rendered the true historical complexities of this campus into a simple, dominant and incomplete story of hypersensitivity on college campuses.
Moreover, the national conversation transformed the Trump chalkings, and the resulting protests, into the failure of Emory as an institution. Emory’s seeming abandonment of the ideals embodied by the First Amendment was wrongly emphasized by the media.
To clear the air, Emory has safeguards in place to protect speech that is content neutral. The Respect for Open Expression Policy, which governs free expression at Emory, unapologetically protects the right to speak of all members of the Emory community to freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, the current policy extends protections far beyond those granted by the First Amendment to individuals at public universities. The First Amendment only protects speech from state action, such as a university policy prohibiting certain viewpoints or placing burdensome restrictions, while the Respect for Open Expression Policy holds all community members to the same standard.
However, unlike the First Amendment, the current policy has not been tried and tested. There is a potential for misuse in the fundamental lack of clarity of the current policy, due to its infancy. Thus far, the Committee for Open Expression has done commendable work responding to controversial campus events in order to elaborate on the meaning of the policy.
Yet, there is much work to be done to ensure a change in committee membership or administrative leadership would not allow for drastic shifts in the forms of expression that are protected. Of particular importance is to draw clear lines for all community members as to what forms of expression are barred by the policy.
The most notable example of such uncertainties is the policies prohibiting speech that is harassing in nature. Harassment has different connotations in different contexts to different people. A change in committee membership leaves open the potential for a change in interpretation.
The community requires unwavering commitment by current and all future administrations to the Respect for Open Expression Policy, as anything vague and undefined may chill unpopular speech or further the dominance of majority view.
The beauty of speech resides in its ability to facilitate thoughtful and open dialogue. That dialogue has allowed engagement with history and context at Emory. It is through free dialogue that the narratives of others can be understood. Well-protected open expression is what enables the sharing of lived experiences and the sharing of very real grievances that students of color face. Understanding that relationship between open expression and the conversation about racism allows us to understand the conversation that our community is having about this incident. However, this discussion about freedom of expression has a tendency to overshadow the necessary conversations that are happening and that require our attention to inequality and grievances.
It is clear that there is a tangible divide over the state of race on this campus. Yet in reading the national story, there is no understanding of the very real history of racism at this school. The frustrations of students of color are the product of an accumulation of regular incidents on our campus, the stress that comes with being a minority on a campus that is predominantly white and the fact that this institution only in relatively recent memory allowed their participation.
In this lights, it becomes vital to understand that this issue is a part of a much larger conversation that needs to be had. Intent cannot be assumed on the part of these protesters; there are too many individuals searching for too many different things to grasp and attack any single issue. But there is one thing heard loud and clear from all of them: “Listen to us, hear what we have to say.”
Our students have experienced their university president refer to the Three-Fifths Compromise as a model of mutual concession. They have watched their peers on a campus TV comedy calling for the use of “lynching, tarring, feathering and cross burning.” Along with the cumulation of these experiences, students have also brought national conversations to our campus to advocate for the advancement of students and faculty of color through the list of demands and through the Racial Justice Retreat earlier this semester. No single incident can be understood without the context of the history of Emory’s racial climate and the national conversations by which they are being affected and in which they are participating.
Because of the lived experiences of students of color, incidents that may seem race-neutral to some are heavily racialized to minorities. Regardless of one’s political stance, the name Trump alone to some Americans has come to evoke fear and embody racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia and hate. This was seen in two separate recent incidents at high school basketball games where the audiences chanted “Trump 2016” and held signs with Trump’s face to intimidate the opposing teams which were heavily Hispanic and Latinx. There are also numerous examples of violence at Trump rallies, many of which were directed toward minorities. To deny that this candidate is a symbol of hate to some would be turning a blind eye to the current political climate and minimizing the damage done to marginalized groups.
Freedom of expression is a tool that is important in changing the world, but it can simultaneously spread messages of hate. Despite this ugly truth, there cannot be a suspension of the free expression of those who seek to discuss. In the hindrance free speech, power is taken from ordinary people and given to those who are already powerful, allowing them to decide who can say what and to perpetuate the status quo. Freedom of expression is vital; through freedom of expression, activists are able to protest and challenge what they see to be wrong. It is because of activists that the Emory community is able to participate in difficult and complex conversations, such as the state of race on this campus.
It is through a strong sense of freedom of expression that the the necessary and tough conversations can go from invested groups to popular discourse and move toward healing the divide this issue has highlighted. Beneficial and responsible engagement requires speech that understands the other side and does not seek to silence nor divide. That is how any community must responsibly utilize this power. We must listen as well as speak.
This can be done only if proper and responsible policies are ensured that protect the speech of our students, our faculty and our staff no matter which way the wind may blow. Protecting these mechanisms for the future so this community can continue to engage with the most pertinent issues is key to ensuring not only the ever-forward march of progress but also to protecting the perpetual search for truth that is at the heart of academic pursuit. Let us continue to participate in dialogue and challenge the world we live in.
As students, we endeavor not only to develop our practical knowledge and political views before graduation; we strive also to cultivate our moral beliefs. Meaningful discussion can exist only in the presence of open expression — and we can grow as thinkers, as citizens and as humans with not only the allowance but the encouragement of that discourse. It is not merely the fate of the country that relies on free speech; our virtue is contingent on it.
The above staff editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel‘s editorial board. No staff member involved in reporting or news coverage of related events participated in deliberations.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
“To clear the air, Emory has safeguards
in place to protect speech that is content neutral. The Respect for Open
Expression Policy, which governs free expression at Emory,
unapologetically protects the right to speak of all members of the Emory
community to freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, the current policy
extends protections far beyond those granted by the First Amendment to
individuals at public universities. The First Amendment only protects
speech from state action, such as a university policy prohibiting
certain viewpoints or placing burdensome restrictions, while the Respect
for Open Expression Policy holds all community members to the same
standard.”
In this paragraph, I am frankly stunned.
“…Emory has safeguards in place to protect speech that is content neutral.”
WHAT? So only “content neutral” speech is protected? That’s the same thing these useless protesters are whining about. They don’t want anything challenging their exceptionally limited world view. THIS is what passes for free speech protection at Emory? Really?
And, Emory feels the need to create additional “policies” to somehow help to “bolster” the First Amendment – which by your own admission has been tried and tested?
The First Amendment is all that’s necessary here. It actually IS tried and tested.
What in God’s name are you being taught at Emory?
And you think that Emory students are somehow unique with respect to incidents of “racism”? Pluh-eeeeeese.
No wonder. You children ARE living in a cushioned ivory-tower world. No wonder articles like this can be written… worse yet, be taken seriously. The more you guys try to smooth things out, the more “progressive” and impotent you look.
see my comment below. This is a poorly written piece overall. I think they meant the safeguards are content neutral. At least I hope that’s what they meant.
I thought about that too.
I sure hope that is what they meant too, but I have my doubts.
I assume they mean time, place, and manner restrictions which are content neutral and not the speech itself.
That may be a rather large assumption.
So far, everyone complaining about all this has been little petulant kids with a victim mentality.
I know. The 1st Amendment, though not legally at play here, allows for time , place, and manner restrictions as long as they are fair to all sides – in other words – “content neutral.” Perhaps these kids don’t understand that.
I assure you they don’t understand that.
I just signed the petition, “Colorado Governor: Label Black Lives Matter a Hate Group!.”
https://www.change.org/p/colorado-governor-label-black-lives-matter-a-hate-group
Is it just me or is this a poorly written op-ed piece? Or is just poorly edited?
I had to re-read many portions of this piece to understand what you all are saying and I’m still not sure.
As Scalia said, perhaps some students should go to segregated (apartheid) schools.
PS: Read the Bell Curve, if you’re literate.
Liberals = cowards
You should have virtue in the first place by fiercely protecting free speech to begin with.
Can anyone at Emory write?
“To clear the air, Emory has safeguards in place to protect speech that is content neutral.”
This sentence appears to say that Emory’s safeguards protect speech so long as the speech is “neutral” in content. That can’t be right. Such safeguards would be worthless, as there’s really no such as thing “content neutral” speech.
I imagine the writer meant to say that the safeguards themselves are content neutral. And if that’s the case, then the editorial staff of Emory’s paper of record has opted to marry a plural noun to a singular verb. This is an elementary error, and the fact that it survived the scrutiny of The Wheel’s editorial staff should be cause for humiliation, particularly given that this publication is presently experience its widest audience in years.
Yet another reason to be ashamed I’m an alumnus of this farce of a university.
I too am an embarrassed alum.
I guess teaching classes lauding Che Guevera, Fidel Castro or Bernie Sanders favorably is “content neutral” Mentioning Trump is not.
So, despite many avenues to exercise freedom of expression (and opposition), the crybullies are exempted from any Rule of Order and instead ushered in and pandered to. Were the Trump supporters honored in the same way? Of course not, they were being hunted down through CCTV like common criminals.
Is this article satire? This looks like something North Korean students would write. Good Grief!
Let’s ask the “Kid Dean”. One more joke.
“To clear the air, Emory has safeguards in place to protect speech that is content neutral.”
Seems to me that the editors of the Emory Wheel actually sat in drum circle, (weeping for at least an hour, I’d guess) and concocted this wandering apologetic without any notion of its inherent absurdity. Emory students waste their own freedom lauding such policies that “govern” them and their “right to speak of all members of the Emory community to freedom of spech,”(sic) whatever that means.
Does emotional catharsis necessarily beget incoherence? I’m curious because if this is the case, I’ll want my son as far from Emory and its band of mewling leftists as I can get him.
Emory students waste their own freedom lauding such policies that “govern” them …… and I should also say, that condone their own awful behavior.
‘Intent cannot be assumed on the part of these protesters; there are too many individuals searching for too many different things to grasp and attack any single issue. But there is one thing heard loud and clear from all of them: “Listen to us, hear what we have to say.”’
Emory Editors, you need your mothers to sing you to sleep. You poor poor kids are stressed out. Your vacation from reality results in your needing another vacation.
This editorial confirms one more time that emory administration and students on emory wheel do not have any idea about free speech. They should really read the University of Minnesota statement and hopefully gain some understanding. How minority communities are affected by speech is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is the ability of said minorities to answer speech with speech. If somebody feels uncomfortable, so be it.
I agree, except to say that free speech isn’t a major value. It’s a common rule for tolerating values that by themselves are more significant.
That is why the concept of free speech was concocted progressively in Christian countries, such as England and the US, because the Christian belief system is open to varying philosophical opinions.
The new progressivism however, is NOT open to opinions, is hopelessly lost in rhetorical dithering about pain, hurt feelings, minority rights and “common values” (of Emory and elsewhere, though they rarely, if ever, openly state what those awful values are–naked political power achieved through any means necessary)). This is why THEY make free speech the value they supposedly uphold, precisely because they do NOT uphold it.
They do not uphold it because the truth is anathema to their goals of political dominance and silencing of antithetical ideas.
No, I disagree, it’s a fundamental value to an open society, which makes all the other rights possible. The only way, truth and virtue can be reached.
I agree with you essentially.
Truth and virtue are the greater goals and free speech is part of the American way of achieving the good.
Emory just keeps making it worse. I think this editorial advocates litmus test on speech based on race. A shameful editorial with extreme political bias and outrageious demands for preferential treatment.
Shame.
Very good stance on freedom of speech and glad the wheel is finally recognizing the illiberal and unclear “harassment” policy. That said, your editorial could have been much improved by removing the emotional pandering paragraphs. You are not victims. Say it again in the mirror 10 times. You attend what should become again an elite institution. You are not a victim. I encourage you to read the great Atlantic piece, “the coddling of the American mind”, and consider how it applies to you: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
As Obama said in Sept: “I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” Obama continued.
“I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of views,” he said.
You are adults – you do not need to be coddled or protected from different points of view. You are not victims.
You’re right. Except that these students are only adults in the physical/chronological sense of the word.
What the really are is over-protected little snowflakes who are afraid of their own shadow. Or worse, they are budding totalitarians working to suppress free speech.
I run into this attitude a lot.. The Constitution does not grant the Government the power or authority to interfere with speech. The Declaration says we are endowed by our Creator with Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all just powers of government come from the consent of the Governed. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the Bill of Rights was added to emphasize that We the People did not empower or authorize the government to interfere with our God given rights to freedom of speech assembly etc. the 1st Amendment is written , not granting a Right, but in the negative ” Congress shall make NO law” abridging prohibiting. Recognizing that the Rights of speech, assembly, press, religion come from a higher power than governments, ur mortals, or scraps of paper .. governments and mortal agency does not create or grant Rights, Rights come as part of the standard package of being born human, to not recognize Human Rights is to deny humans their fundamental humanity and dignity .
And then some Yahoo comes along and says “gee see how nice we are, the Constitution only applies to Government, only the Government is required to recognize your humanity and dignity and only because the Constitution says so.. and we sort of , kind of , conditionally extend some modicum of your Rights to You in our Private domain. God may bestow Rights elsewhere, Your Creator may endow you with Human Rights and Dignity, Freedom of Conscience but in Our Dominion we are God, we Grant Human Rights as we see fit, and here your Humanity and Dignity is conditionally granted.. By a Dean even, Greater than God , Deans can ignore the endowment of mere Creators, and because we are nice, we will only marginally recognize your humanity and dignity because we can’t read and comprehend or even tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so we don’t we have to fully recognize your humanity and dignity, but we do in some small way because we are nice tyrants, you are lucky to have us.
Give a free person private property and authority over it and they love their human Rights, but somehow they think they have the authority to deny them to others , they become petty tyrants with petty powers and think because they can use force and coresion in their own domain to enforce their personal idea of Human Rights, of lack thereof, they are somehow within their Rights to do so. Tyranny is Tyranny, abridgement is abridgement, Nation or Campus but not having or living by any particular principle other than their own will, they think those they impose upon should think them nice. Just having the power to deny and infringe on rights doesn’t make one right when they do so, Right makes Might, not Might makes Right and the editorial staff simply can’t see that.. because they are nice people They just don’t walk the walk or even talk the talk.
Hilarious. A gang of leftist crybullies and their enablers desperately trying to excuse their embarrassing behavior after making a mockery of themselves in front of the entire country and thoroughly alienating everyone who is not an entitled SJW in problem glasses.
“Emory has safeguards in place to protect speech that is content neutral.”
“Content neutral.” More Orwellian, policitally correct gibberish. Can you give me an example of any speech that expresses an opinion or conveys information that is “content neutral?”
“The most notable example of such uncertainties is the policies prohibiting speech that is harassing in nature. Harassment has different connotations in different contexts to different people.”
And we all know that the people who get to decide what constitutes “speech that is harassing in nature” are Cultural Marxist apparatchiks, their useful idiot “Studies” major students, and the co-opted administration.
But that’s changing, isn’t it? People are no longer buying what’s you’re selling. It’s as if gravity itself has changed direction. And that sensation you’re feeling is your grip on power, and on the minds of your fellow students, slipping away. Tomorrow belongs to us.
lel. It hasn’t been exaggerated. This place is slowly becoming an echo chamber.