|
This is my fifth year serving as a university president. Two aspects of the role are constant: the calls for free speech and expression, and the cries to sanction those who freely express their views.
Like many people, I process my current experiences through a developmental lens that begins with childhood.
I grew up on the South Side of Chicago. It was a nurturing environment, but the harsh realities of hearing tough criticism were ever-present. I learned to process the speech of others matter-of-factly while offering my own opinions with the expectation that the recipient was prepared to engage in the accepted norms of verbal exchange.
That meant they would listen and argue in turn. Some would talk over you; others waited, then debated with vigor. Heated discussions were part of the cultural ethos. Whether in school, on the playground, or at an after-school job, we argued about politics, sports, and fashion choices.
There was no social media or cancel culture. We talked, argued, and debated. Afterward, we found a way to respect the argument or avoid the topic. Friendships remained intact. My point is that canceling someone would have been seen as a sign of weakness, not strength. We were expected to defend our views, not silence others.
Today, we live in very different times. As a college president, I have received messages from faculty, students, alumni, politicians, and even people only loosely connected to the university, all calling to “cancel” members of the university community for ideas expressed in their articles, books, courses, social media posts, art, or interviews. The tension surrounding speech reflects not only political polarization but also differing understandings of what constitutes harm and responsibility.
Some in our community argue that certain speech undermines the nation’s values or erodes respect for faith, patriotism, and order. They worry that the classroom or campus stage has become a platform for hostility toward religion, police, or traditional institutions. From their perspective, the university should limit speech that disrespects the moral and civic foundations of society.
Other community members argue that speech disparaging marginalized groups—or denying their lived experiences—should not be granted a public platform. They fear that unrestrained expression can perpetuate racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry, and that institutions have a duty to protect students from such risks. From their perspective, the university should restrict speech that dehumanizes or threatens inclusion.
The role of the university, however, is not to prevent discomfort or protect ideology. Our responsibility is to protect the conditions for inquiry and debate. We do this by modeling the free exchange of ideas, upholding the law, and fostering a secure environment for teaching and research.
We all have a responsibility to model how to engage in difficult arguments without resorting to silencing others, harassment, or threats of harm or violence. The university must remain a place where ideas—popular or unpopular—can be tested through reason, evidence, and debate. Truth emerges not from uniformity but from the contest of ideas.
Protecting free speech, as we do at Rutgers, does not mean endorsing every view expressed on campus. It means defending the right to express those views, confident that through open exchange and inquiry, better arguments will prevail. The antidote to offensive or misguided speech is more speech—informed, empathetic, and courageous speech.
That is how we sustain the university as a marketplace of ideas and, more importantly, as a training ground for citizenship in a free society.
| 
