Editor’s note: This letter remains in the condition in which it was sent.
The latest edition of the University’s newsletter contains a link titled “UB addresses free speech on campus”. What I expected was a full-fledged defense of the principles of free speech, which has been a cornerstone characteristic of the American system of higher education and one that has fostered innovation and thought-leadership for decades. But the three-and-a-half-minute video that followed was an abomination of that.
While vice-president Hamluk provided what seemed like a perfectly accurate legal explanation on why the University cannot prohibit speakers, the video had an undertone of apology and helplessness. He makes it seem like the first amendment is a necessary burden that universities like ours must bear. I understand that this maybe a prevalent sentiment among many students, but one that is extremely misguided. It is deeply worrying when university administrators parrot and affirm these talking points given the importance of educational institutions in shaping society and polity. Free speech on campus is a value worth protecting, irrespective of whether an institution is compelled by law, to do so. On a deeper level, what felt more troublesome was the fact that vice-president Hamluk suggested that some speakers are invited solely to disturb the peace and order on campus rather than to facilitate meaningful discussion. This coming from someone so high up in the administration feels extraordinarily inappropriate and has the potential to prejudice the UB community against certain clubs and students part of those respective clubs. It has long been established that the role of universities is to equip students to make decisions but not to make the decisions for them. And despite that, vice-president Hamluk seems to have made this determination. He also goes on to suggest that upholding the principles of free speech may seem counterintuitive to the diverse and inclusive nature of the UB community without any elaboration or reason. It does seem that UB takes pride in all forms of diversity on campus except the diversity of thought, which is profoundly important in any place of learning.
While the faculty senate adopted, and President Tripathi promulgated as policy, verbatim, the University of Chicago’s Freedom of Expression policy (the gold standard for campus speech policies) in 2017, this year’s college free speech rankings by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranks UB 105th nationally in “Admin Support” and 156th in “Tolerance for Speakers” and with an overall rating of “Above average”. The same report also states that 54% of the students have self-censored on campus at least once a month due to concerns of being misunderstood and 64% of the students feel that it is acceptable, although rarely, to shout down speakers that they disagree with or find repulsive. These figures should be a wake-up call for President Tripathi, vice-president Hamluk and everyone else in the university administration. As the flagship institution of the State University of New York system, UB should aspire for more in this regard. It needs to do better to educate students on the importance of free expression without relying on the compulsions of the first amendment. It needs to educate and encourage its administrators to stand firm and affirm the quintessence of these values. Yes, the first amendment offers widespread protection of free expression, sbut it does no justice to highlight just that but not talk about value of free speech that we cherish and of which the first amendment is an embodiment of.
The vice-president of student life should be one that sees the vital importance of these values and not one that tolerates it because the law compels him to.
Rahul Bharadwaj R
Graduate Student – Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
