It is widely accepted that education is centered around challenging students’ beliefs and encouraging them to think freely and make rational decisions. Unfortunately, an increasingly hostile culture surrounding guest speakers on college campuses has brought the idea of free speech within academia into question. As “woke culture” becomes more prevalent, we must remember that diversity of opinion and discussing uncomfortable topics is crucial to growing as a society.
Over the last couple of years, elite universities have served as an ideological battleground between students and conservative speakers. Most recently, Judge Kyle Duncan spoke at Stanford University on behalf of the school’s Federalist Society Chapter, which is, according to its website, “a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.”
Duncan, a Federal Appeal Judge appointed by Former President Donald Trump P ’00, is a staunch conservative. His controversial reputation precedes him, having used his platform to advocate against LGBTQIA+ rights throughout his judicial career. Though his rulings have legal backing, his stance has made some question the impartiality of his decisions. In a 2020 case concerned with a transgender prisoner requesting to change their name in the system, Duncan ruled that if the court approved the transfer, they would be accepting their own bias towards the prisoner; thus, the case was shot down.
Duncan’s viewpoints, many of which are extreme and based on tenuous arguments, have rightly faced opposition. However, the events at Stanford this March are arguably more destructive than any ideas Duncan has advocated for.
Groups of students and faculty, including Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach, who is now on-leave, rallied against Duncan in a notably vicious manner. Displaying a complete lack of civility, protesters yelled things such as, “We hope your daughters get raped.” When the protests devolved into shouting matches loaded with personal attacks, Duncan’s opposition lost their credibility and, more importantly, the moral high ground.
The protesters at Stanford were not attacking Duncan’s opinions; the hecklers were attacking his character and his civil right to express them. Though the protests were not physically harmful, they revealed the oppressive nature of “woke culture.” In the quest to be politically correct, people with opinions that stray away from liberal values are ostracized and ridiculed, inhibiting any opportunity for proper discourse.
Following the protests, Jenny Martinez, Dean of Stanford Law School, said, “Unless we recognize that student members of the Federalist Society and other conservatives have the same right to express their views free of coercion, we cannot live up to this commitment, nor can we claim that we are fostering an inclusive environment for all students.” This single event serves as a perfect example of the destructive nature of cancel culture and the notion of political correctness — two of the most prominent political trends today.
A similar attack on free speech took place at Cornell University. In March, the student body voted to enact “trigger warnings” in syllabi, which could potentially result in changes to course materials, but Cornell President Martha E. Pollack vetoed this result. College professors create courses to spark debate and encourage students to question the world — not courses that protect students from reality. Students’ vehement attempts to enact such warnings beg the question: if students aren’t willing to explore new, challenging, and potentially provocative ideas, what do they want to learn?
An atmosphere that fights anything remotely offensive has silenced many faculty members who feel their beliefs differ from the status quo. This has been one of the driving forces behind “echo chambers,” environments in which ideological groups only consume media they agree with. Plaguing American politics, echo chambers have worsened debate and cooperation. Considering that many influential scholars and politicians today have attended our country’s elite universities, a future defined by polarization and a lack of cooperation is imminent with increasingly hostile political discourse on campuses.
Well-known public figure and professor Jordan Peterson has also sparked controversy by quitting his position at the University of Toronto due to a lack of discourse and the imposition of partisan ideas. Peterson argued that equity initiatives at the university were harming the meritocratic and discussion-based environment.
As a Democrat myself, it may seem that I am arguing against my own ideals by supporting the rights of figures like Kyle Duncan. In reality, it’s quite the opposite; free speech is the cornerstone of any well-functioning democracy. I see it as my duty to fight for the First Amendment, whether exercised by Republicans, Democrats, or anything in between. If I am unwilling to let others challenge my ideas, I am likely misinformed. Though I may not agree with Kyle Duncan (and think most of his stances are inexcusable), we cannot silence those we disagree with.
In a time when people have more mediums to express themselves than ever before, it is crucial for societies to both advocate for personal rights and hold people accountable. In an era defined by intense polarization, a complete lack of censorship could result in more violence on campuses — a less-than-ideal outcome. A complete lack of control over debates on college campuses could have disastrous effects, too. A healthy balance, though challenging to reach, is necessary for the longevity and integrity of educational institutions.
In a new political landscape defined by cancel culture and “wokeness,” we must remember that dissent and debate are not dangerous, but in fact integral, to societal prosperity.
