Forum on Free Discourse in an Inclusive Community
Last night, we hosted a forum with a packed
audience in Degenstein Theatre moderated by Dena Salerno (Assistant Dean of
Diversity and Inclusion) and Scott Kershner (Chaplain) with Professors Nick
Clark (political science), Michele DeMary (political science), Laura Dougherty
(Theatre), Shari Jacobson (Anthropology), Jeff Mann (Religion), Laurence Roth
(English), Hasanthika Sirisena (Creative Writing), Apryl Williams (Sociology),
and Coleen Zoller (Philosophy) serving as panelists.
The panel addressed the question, “What is acceptable discourse in a
community of respect, and how do we respond to the conflict between freedom of
speech and hate speech?” This included prepared comments from Professors
Clark, Sirisena, Jacobson, and Mann followed by the entire panel responding to
questions posed by our student.
I shared a few framing thoughts, which included:
· The 1940 Statement of
Principle on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of
University Professors states that “Institutions of higher education are
conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the
individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon
the free search for truth and its free exposition.”
· We
invite discourse from divergent opinions, but as a university we hold them to
the same standards of scholarly rigor as in our own work.
· This
does not mean that all positions and perspectives are given equal value. As we
develop as scholars and thinkers, we confirm and strengthen positions we hold
to be true. In the classroom, faculty profess what they have come to believe is
true through a career of research, debate, and reflection.
· As
a private institution Susquehanna is subject to a different set of expectations
in its approach to contemporary issues from public universities. Like faculty
in the classroom, we too, can identify and embrace particular values as an
institution that shape the decisions of whom we invite to campus and
declarations we make as an institution.
o Our
Mission Statement, Guiding Values, and Statements on Diversity and
Inclusiveness and Ethical Living are prominent examples of this, but there are many
other subtler positions we take as a university.
I was
proud of our students for their very thoughtful questions and grateful to our
faculty and staff for their rich, provocative, and instructive responses.
Some of my
takeaways were:
·
“Speech
is never free.” There are legal, regulatory,
and societal consequences for what we say and where we can say it.
·
The
precision of the language we use around this topic is challenging and
important.
·
Hate
speech is never victimless, and as a community, we need to advocate for the
safety and well-being of all our neighbors.
·
We
need to continue to have difficult conversations, and these will sometimes make
participants uncomfortable. Some of these conversations and topics have a
better home in the classroom than on stage.
·
We
need to help our students and each other develop the skills to effectively
respond to hate speech and other acts of exclusion and prejudice.
This was an important first
conversation for the year on the subject of inclusion. I am excited and hopeful
for productive ongoing dialog on this important topic.
