Lexi Boccuzzi | Do as I say and not as I do?

“It is crucial that ideas are exchanged and diverse viewpoints are debated… we need both safety and free expression for democracy to thrive,” said President Magill in her opening testimony at this week’s House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee hearing.

The hearing which was seeking to address rising antisemitism on campus, brought President Magill and other University presidents to the Capitol for questioning. As a former intern on the Committee, I was very disappointed to not be present in person, but I was also very intrigued to see how President Magill would respond to critique from the members. In many of her responses she reiterated some form of the above statement. 

However, while our President’s words are good in theory, simply continuing to say we are committed to “free expression” doesn’t answer the question of what that entails. Does free speech just mean allowing protests or does it oblige us to cultivate a culture of civil discourse? What constitutes protected speech on campus, and where does that end and conduct begin?

President Magill is not alone in emphasizing this principle — in response to calls to discipline faculty and students who have been accused of antisemitism, many pro-Palestinian groups have invoked “academic freedom.” As many readers likely know, I am an avid supporter of a very expansive definition of protected speech. I believe we should consistently prioritize the role of our institutions as places to expand the horizons of our views, and simultaneously see more speech as the best way to combat ideas with which we disagree.

In the past, I have written about commitments to intentional student activism, academic diversity of thought on campus, and even my concern about a lack of free speech on our social media platforms. 

That said, those who are currently arguing for “free speech” have not always shared this broad commitment. Professor Jonathan Zimmerman, an unequivocal defender of free speech, called out this hypocrisy in a recent op-ed by invoking the story of an artist, Hannah Black, who had called for the destruction of a painting she found offensive, and in recent days has become a free speech advocate on Palestinian issues. Zimmerman writes, “But Black stood for censorship — of a fellow artist, at that — until people she liked started getting censored. And then she went all ACLU on us, invoking the Cold War red-baiter Joseph McCarthy and Joseph Welch, the brave lawyer who publicly challenged him.” 

As Professor Zimmerman points out, instances like this seem to indicate that free speech is only a position as deeply held as the political whims of the moment. Unless it is someone from their ideological leanings who is at the other end of the censor, cancelation, or doxxing, many of these intellectuals don’t seem all that concerned with invoking the First Amendment. 

To be clear, I am glad that issues of academic freedom and ideological diversity on college campuses are receiving support from those on the left. The presidents are right to say that universities should embrace broad open-expression principles, but as was pointed out by many of the members of the Committee, these commitments seem arbitrary and superficial at best. Approximately 26% of professors in the US are conservative, and of those, 58% find themselves self-censoring. Is it possible to foster a community of open expression if the ideology among outspoken faculty is so imbalanced?

This hypocrisy seems to apply to requests for “institutional neutrality” on the part of Penn as well. Institutional neutrality seems ideal; UChicago’s position has allowed them to avoid much of this controversy, and I broadly agree with fellow columnist Brett Seaton’s position that “Political university presidents are bad for business.” However, it seems utterly implausible to imagine an apolitical Penn considering the wealth of statements the University has put out (with relatively little pushback) on every issue of recent years from the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade to the death of George Floyd. This is true across the board at our peer institutions, as pointed out in The Daily Princetonian. How can a University cultivate free speech in any meaningful way if it has taken a stance on every political issue under the sun?

While it seems fairly clear what the practical and institutional barriers are to this so-called “open expression” on campus, there also seems to be a very obvious misunderstanding of what constitutes protected speech. As described by constitutional lawyer and civil-libertarian Ilya Shapiro in a recent op-ed, “Much of what we’ve witnessed on campuses over the past few weeks is not, in fact, speech, but conduct designed specifically to harass, intimidate, and terrorize Jews.”

To Ilya Shapiro’s point, much of this speech is escalating to the levels of unlawful conduct. Vandalism and theft, for example, are not protected forms of open expression. These include actions taken during protests on Dec. 3 which were discussed by President Magill in this week’s hearing like harassing a Jewish/Israeli-owned restaurant and spraying graffiti on various pieces of Penn, city, and private property. Similarly, an incident last month where a student stole an Israeli flag from a house off campus constituted conduct that violated both Penn guidelines and the law. We need to be careful and clear about what types of behavior we are actually referring to when we invoke free speech.

Although President Magill said our open expression policies are “guided by the First Amendment,” protected speech on campus is also not nearly as broad as that incorporated in the First Amendment, often for practical education-related purposes. As was addressed by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), harassment is not permissible according to most University guidelines. Our own Penn open-expression guidelines are even so specific as to limit the speech to an “unreasonable noise level,” ie. that exceeds 85 decibels. Some may argue, maybe even rightfully so, that these parameters are arbitrary and restrictive. However, the fact that they are in place still remains. 

While I am glad to see that the University and its President are prioritizing free speech principles, I worry that some of this rhetoric is often more of a performative ideal rather than a reality in practice. Claiming to promote open expression should not be a tool of evasion for very real issues of unlawful conduct by students. Similarly, commitments to free speech should be all-encompassing and cultural, not just convenient epithets to invoke in times of political turmoil. Penn needs to stop telling people to do as I say, and not as I do. 

LEXI BOCCUZZI is a College senior studying philosophy, politics, and economics from Stamford, Conn. Her email is boccuzzi@thedp.com.