Noor Chafouk | Fallacies of Free Speech: Exploring the dynamics and scope of protections in academic discourse

The recent controversy surrounding Amy Wax intertwined with the community uproar over Palestine Writes’ choice of speakers provokes a complex re-evaluation of free speech within educational institutions. These are not merely a litmus test for ideological allegiances, but moments for serious reflection on the role of academic freedom in an increasingly interconnected and pluralistic world. 

When Wax unfurls her words, there is no doubt a seethingly controversial, and what many consider an extremist sentiment. This has not only ignited feedback and debate in Penn extremities, but has resounded nationwide. The Harvard Crimson discussed the necessity for her to be removed from her position, representing the predominant narrative towards her words. Others have noted that she is adhering to the breaches of freedom of speech in academia since her opinions are protected under this premise. 

There is growing tension at the intersection of academic philosophy and public discourse, especially in the era of heightened political polarization. Proponents, or I could even say absolutists, of freedom of speech believe this is fortifying a sense of resurgence in the right of expression in schools. Silencing her, in their point of view, would be a violation of the principles that academia stands on: the free and unfettered exchange of ideas, no matter how uncomfortable they may be. They feel silenced by this restriction on what can be said in scholarly spaces, and believe this is a refreshing rebuttal. Penn’s ranking as second-to-last in terms of freedom of speech out of 248 schools doesn’t hurt their argument (hey, at least we beat Harvard). This particularly resonates with the decline in acceptance of conservative speakers on campus. 

Roger Waters and Mohammed El-Kurd, who are both upcoming speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival, have sprouted controversy and backlash in international circles. Roger Waters’ decision to wear a Nazi-style uniform in his plight against fascism and the Israeli state raises concerns of antisemitism in the Palestine-Israel conversation. El-Kurd’s impassioned rhetoric and cogent arguments have been labeled as 'extremist' by some individuals and 'truth-telling' by others as he recounts his experiences and contentions as a Palestinian activist. However, there have been alleged antisemitic undertones in his writings, notably the allusion to the “blood libel" trope in his works which has marginalized and targeted Jews over the course of history. Although his criticism of the treatment of the Palestinians can hold merit, academic spaces must scrutinize even well-intentioned speakers for biases or harmful stereotypes that might seep into the discourse.

How about if we forget about the context of our polarized world, and particularly this situation itself, and focus on the history and foundation of freedom of speech as a whole?

The promotion of truth through freedom of speech has long been based on an epistemic argument — essentially, that free speech and open debate are not just principles, but practical means to arrive at knowledge and truth. This perspective particularly resonates in universities, where the ultimate goal is not just individual expression, but collective enlightenment. 

However, as scholars Alvin Goldman and James Cox point out, unrestricted free speech may contradict those who promote freedom of speech and American values, and might not always yield the best outcomes for collective knowledge and protecting the unheard. Freedom of speech, despite its foundational role in American society, is not absolute. It does not, for instance, protect incitement to violence, false advertising, or "fighting words" that provoke immediate harm. The protection of freedom of speech in academia is inevitably linked to regulation — while this may seem paradoxical, rigorous scrutiny is at the forefront of our system. To neglect that is to neglect not only the experiences of the past but blind oneself to the pressing realities of today, a privilege we cannot afford in the pursuit of justice and building a better world.

The First Amendment is not an indiscriminate shield to defend every kind of expression. Whilst it historically sprouted the revolution against tyrannical structures that limited expression, this does not inextricably tie to supporting a white-only ideology, or tangibly discriminatory themes. When does protecting someone’s words come first, and before, protecting the sentient existence of another being? The Constitution protects citizens from governmental interference in their speech, but it does not necessarily protect a professor from facing consequences at her place of employment, especially when that employment is at an educational institution shaping the minds of future leaders and speakers. 

What is worth examining here is the academic infrastructure that either silences or amplifies these voices. Let’s think about “fighting words” — although Wax’s invocations do not adhere in absolute to its legal criteria, they are subject to scrutiny and potential institutional action. And while these inflammatory words may not directly incite imminent, lawless action, giving the space and honor to a white supremacist gives it life and prolongs its existence in our country.

The distortion of the two-party system has turned us into zombies that ignore the excellence of American values. This should not be a partisan issue. This should be a common sense issue. Liberty of expression should not serve as a smokescreen to complacency towards extremist ideals. It should not be a cop-out to test societal boundaries of acceptability. This is not an issue of  silencing alternative voices, but an issue of the standards an educational institution should uphold. To turn this condemnation into a political debate on the freedom of speech is a senseless deviation from what values political parties should hold in a democratic government. 

Yes, academia needs controversial ideas to provoke thought, but it also demands rigorous scrutiny to filter out hate speech and prejudice. To assume that all and every form of speech must be protected assumes that we live in, and come from, a world devoid of historical systemic subjugation. The paradox is sharp and glaring: the very claim to free speech, in this case, would be used to perpetuate ideas that inherently demean and marginalize certain groups, thereby undermining the spirit of inclusive debate and dialogue. Inviting Jared Taylor — a known white supremacist — twice to a class is an affront to the educational mission as a whole. He is not an academic controversialist whose work could question dominant notions; rather, he promotes contentious beliefs opposed to academic ethics, research, and ideals.

This goes hand-in-hand with the choice of Palestine Writes’ and Penn Students Against the Occupation’s endorsement of speakers — a dominant contention in the past few years is bringing voices to the marginalized and oppressed instead of letting white saviors take center stage. Where does the decision to bring in a non-Palestinian man who dressed as a Nazi come into play? Using what now can be considered white supremacist symbols, such as this sort of uniform, to defend apartheid is not only senseless, it’s contradictory. Considering there are many other qualified and passionate pro-Palestine speakers who could be appointed and honored on stage, I feel that there will never be consensus if we keep making negligent choices. Denigrating someone’s existence and identity seems to swell the issue into combustion.

I personally believe that the forced evacuation and killings of any population cannot be rationalized in any way, but do I believe that channeling antisemitism into the fervor of speech and protest will alleviate the conflict or save lives? Absolutely not. 

My perspective on the issue fundamentally does not matter unless I substantiate it without degrading the existence of another. Palestine Students Against the Occupation and the festival’s core focus should give light to Palestinian students at Penn, and create meaningful spaces for their personal experiences. Impassioned speakers who are educated on the topic and human rights should take center stage; one can criticize the actions of a government without disparaging its people. The choice of controversial speakers has, ironically, stripped Palestinians’ of the privilege to expose students to their culture and works, going against what should be the original intent of the event.

The crux of the matter is not just whether speakers have the right to express their opinions, but whether those opinions contribute positively to the collective knowledge base of the institution and its stakeholders — most importantly, the students.

More importantly, this isn't just about Penn. It’s about maintaining the credibility and integrity of academic institutions everywhere. There is a need, now more than ever, to value the credibility of scholarship and its discourse in universities. Just like you wouldn’t invite a flat earther to a NASA convention, there should be no platform for spreading the diaspora of white nationalism or nativist groups, or any sort of flagrant hate speech. Without intellectual integrity, there is no refuge from ignorance. Schools, especially schools that pride themselves in the quality of their education, cannot be failing us now and feeding into the era of extreme polarization we have become victims to. 

I believe, and I hope many do, that there is breadth and opportunity to invite speakers who breach the boundaries of what some might consider woke culture and offer alternative viewpoints while maintaining a certain level of respect for intellectual vigor and the general livelihoods of other people. This means inviting more speakers who can adequately represent their political affiliation or call for human rights intervention whilst removing the propagation of reactionary rhetoric.

NOOR CHAFOUK is a College junior studying economics and political science from Dallas. Her email is noorsid@sas.upenn.edu.