In Defense of Orgo Night #6
On
Thursday, December 15, 2016, at midnight, the Columbia University Marching Band
(“the cleverest band in the world™”) performed a show of music and satirical
comedy in sub-freezing temperatures on the steps outside Butler Library on the
Columbia campus Vice-Provost and recently hired Head Librarian Ann D. Thornton,
with the support of President Lee Bollinger and Columbia College Dean James
Valentini, banned the Band from performing the show in its traditional location
inside the library. Ms. Thornton stated
that the reason for the sudden change in tradition was a desire to maintain
quiet study space inside the library, and President Bollinger publicly
maintained that it was based on “complaints” from students about the Orgo Night
show. University officials claimed that
the ban was not related to the content of the shows and that they were not
trying to censor the Band’s speech. This
series of essays, drafted by concerned alumni, addresses the university’s
claimed reasoning for its decision, the process by which it was implemented,
and the reasons why the decision should be reconsidered.
Links to earlier essays are found on the right margin of this blog.
H
The appearance of censorship is nearly as bad as
actual censorship
Across the country, public and private
universities struggle with the proper response to objectionable speech and
whether to discipline students and faculty based comments regarding social and
racial issues. In one of the most publicized
incidents, two members of a University of Oklahoma fraternity were expelled
from school after a video was posted of them leading others in the singing of a
racist song. At Tufts, students in
fraternities and sororities were warned of “serious disciplinary sanctions” if
they wore Halloween costumes “that could offend others.” Missouri law students passed a speech code that Above the Law called
Orwellian.
Amherst students called for a speech code that could have sanctioned
students for displaying an “All Lives Matter” poster. At Duke, student activists demanded disciplinary
sanctions for students who attend “culturally insensitive” parties and called
for denial of tenure for faculty whose speech or writings “could potentially
harm the academic achievements of students of color.”
The
litany of incidents and reactions (some would say over-reactions) at
universities around the country has become almost routine. As noted in a Time magazine article on the subject, “our universities have taught a generation of Americans [that] If you
don’t agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or don’t find a joke
funny, then their speech must be suppressed.”
The Wall Street Journal reported on a
survey of 800 college students that found 51 percent favored speech codes. The University of Chicago famously responded
to this trend by admonishing its freshmen that there are no safe zones there
and that students should be ready to face ideas that might make them
uncomfortable. In a commencement speech last year at Howard University, President Obama
(CC ’83) said: “Don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no
matter how much you might disagree with them.”
Columbia University projects an
image to the public that it is a pillar of intellectual integrity and a
sanctuary for free speech and the open exchange of ideas. “The Rules of University Conduct, found
in Chapter XLIV of the Statutes of Columbia University, are intended to ensure
that all members of our community may engage in our cherished traditions of
free expression and open debate.
Like society at large, but even more so, the University has a vital
interest in fostering a climate in which nothing is immune from scrutiny. Columbia has a long tradition of valuing
dissent and controversy and in welcoming the clash of opinions onto the campus.
(Free speech statement posted on https://www.thefire.org/schools/columbia-university/.) The
University’s statement of principles continues as follows:
To be true to these
principles, the University cannot and will not rule any subject or form of
expression out of order on the ground that it is objectionable, offensive,
immoral, or untrue. Viewpoints will inevitably conflict, and members of the
University community will disagree with and may even take offense at both the
opinions expressed by others and the manner in which they are expressed. But
the role of the University is not to shield individuals from positions that
they find unwelcome. Rather, the University is a place for received wisdom and
firmly held views to be tested, and tested again, so that members of the
University community can listen, challenge each other, and be challenged in
return.
University President Lee C. Bollinger
stated at the 2016 Convocation for new students that “We don’t censor speech.”
To
be clear, private universities like Columbia are entirely within their legal
rights to restrict speech. This is not a
First Amendment issue because private universities are not government actors
and are not bound by Constitutional principles.
However, the reputation of a college or university is significantly
affected by the way it handles student and faculty speech. Those, like Columbia, that purport to be
defenders of free speech rights and who claim to welcome discussion of
controversial topics must practice what they preach in order to maintain the
reputation they desire. President
Bollinger recently stated that if the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was
invited to campus to speak, he would allow it, because Columbia does not censor
speech.
It
would be damaging to the university’s reputation in the eyes of prospective
students, current students, alumni, faculty and potential faculty, and the
public generally if the university engaged in censorship of students or student
groups, in contravention of its stated ideals and principles.
What,
then, are we to make of the university’s decision to try to muzzle its
sometimes controversial Marching Band? Certainly,
over many years, the Band’s shows on Orgo Nights have generated protests, cries
of outrage, and condemnation from students and student groups who have claimed
that the programs, or in some cases the posters advertising the show, were
offensive to some groups or individuals.
But, despite calls for action against the Band, university
administration did not retaliate based on the Band’s speech and permitted the
Orgo Night’s performances to continue without interruption – until December of
2016.
If
the university administrators responsible for the action against the Band were
actually motivated by a desire to censor the Band’s content and reduce its
audience based on objections to the messages that they thought might be
included in the program, such censorship would violate university
principles. For this reason, the
administration cannot admit such an improper motive, and in fact President
Bollinger has specifically denied that censorship of the message was the motive
behind the action.
And
yet, the facts surrounding the decision strongly suggest that censorship was
actually motivating the university’s actions.
The evidence for this conclusion is set out in detail in an earlier essay. The involved administrators,
of course, will deny such an actual motive, as they must. But the motives asserted as being the basis
for the decision are demonstrably false and lack any rational foundation,
leaving any objective observer to wonder: what was the real motive that the
administrators don’t want to admit? The
only conclusion is that the real motive is, indeed, censorship, because if
there were another motive the university would be willing to articulate it.
In
addition, the university must deal with the very real appearance of
censorship. It is possible that Ann
Thornton, Dean Valentini, President Bollinger, and the other members of the
secret cabal that made the decision to ban the Band from the library acted not out
of an overt intent to censor the band, but rather out of a mistaken
understanding of the facts, or based on incorrect information provided by
others, or based on some other invalid reason.
But observers, including other student groups, will view the assault on
the Band as clearly the censorship of the Band’s speech. This appearance of censorship is as bad for
the university as actual censorship.
Consider
this example. An associate professor at
Columbia gives a speech on campus in which he makes statements that are later
the subject of protests claiming that the statements are demeaning toward a
minority group. Student groups on campus
boycott his classes and protest around university buildings, but the university
President issues a statement of support that the professor has the right to
speak and that Columbia welcomes controversial discussion as part of its
intellectual mandate. The protests die
down after a few weeks. A few months
later, the professor is denied tenure and effectively fired. In the process of discussing whether to issue
tenure to the controversial professor, his Department Head states that the
decision was based on the professor’s failure to publish substantial articles,
the poor reviews of his classes by his students, and peer reviews by department
professors. After the decision is
announced, an independent investigation concludes that the professor published
more articles, which were more critically praised, than three other professors
who were granted tenure in the prior year, including one who was granted tenure
in the same review cycle. The
investigation also shows that the professor’s classes received higher student
ratings than the other professor who was granted tenure, and that the person
granted tenure received lower scores in peer reviews.
It
may be true, in this example, that the tenure committee had incorrect
information, or it may have been that some information was misrepresented or
misinterpreted. Regardless of the truth,
it appears that tenure was withheld in retaliation for the professor’s
controversial speech, despite assurances to the contrary. Other potential faculty members will see this
and wonder whether free speech is really protected at Columbia, or whether
protests by students will result in adverse action that will be cloaked in
false rationales. The appearance of
adverse action based on controversial speech is a black eye for the university
even if there really was another reason.
Appearances
are important, and perception is reality for many. The appearance of censorship by university
administration is a serious problem.
Whether warranted or not, the university is at risk here of fostering an
image of Columbia as a university where controversial speech is met by
retaliation and censorship. The
transparently false justifications offered by university administration for the
cancellation of the Orgo Night program leaves the impression that censorship is
the true motive, and correct or not, inflicts a black eye on Columbia that is
difficult to remove.
The
solution to this problem is simple, but is the one thing that university
administrators resist most – admitting that they made a mistake. The decision regarding Orgo Night was made
hastily and without sufficient data or discussion. There is little shame in admitting these realities
and returning the Orgo Night show to its traditional location in Butler
209. If in fact there is a problem that
needs to be addressed, the administration can properly study it, consider it,
and take action based on facts that would not present the same appearance of
censorship. Admitting error is a sign of
intelligence, not weakness. Facts were
not complete, analysis was not thorough, and contrary information and alternatives
were not properly considered. Admitting
this is not an indictment of the university, but failing to admit it will leave
a lasting mark.
-
Hamiltonius
- H
No comments:
Post a Comment