This essay is the winner of The Economist’s Open Future essay competition in the category of Open Ideas, responding to the question: “What should a commitment to free speech on campus entail?” The winner is Katherine Krem, 23 years old, from Bulgaria.

* * *

Four years ago, I left my home country, a former communist state in eastern Europe and travelled to “the land of the free” to attend a private university, whose founding motto is “The Wind of Freedom Blows”. I was leaving a country where my grandparents used to be afraid to read the Bible or tell political jokes (even in their own home), as such actions used to be punishable by imprisonment or, worse, being sent to a labour camp. I was going to the most liberal part of America, carrying with me a deep love of freedom, born from the painful history of a country where censorship used to be a powerful tool for oppression.

In my first week on campus, a classmate questioned the premise of affirmative action in tech. He did not receive an answer but a label: “bigot,” “misogynist,” “-phobe.” Not only his “privilege” (white, straight, male) seemed to disqualify him from participating in such discussion, but the conversation itself was deemed inappropriate, offensive.

In the next four years of tiptoeing around volatile words, I continuously witnessed the shutting down of important discussions—by both students and instructors—as logically valid but “offensive” questions were dismissed and those who dared to ask them were socially ostracised or punished. Hysterical backlashes substituted much-needed dialogue. Last year, a conservative student organisation at my university invited a controversial author and activist to speak on the possible threats of jihadist theology and ideology. The response of over twenty student organisations was to boycott the event. As much as I agree with the motives, I disagree with the method. Of course, speech that constitutes targeted harassment or threat, or instigates violence, has no place on university campuses. Such instances should, on a case-to-case basis, be subjected to legal action. With those exceptions, however, there should be no infringement on free expression, and controversial speeches should be allowed, if not encouraged. There are two distinct but related reasons for this. The first has to do with freedom of speech as a fundamental right, vital to democracy, social change and the ability to fight injustice. The second reason is specific to universities, where freedom of speech—and, by extension, freedom of thought—is central to the institutions’ core mission of fostering intellectual inquiry and independence. Limiting freedom of expression goes against the very idea of democracy, threatening to impede social progress and the fight for just and egalitarian social order. The current phenomenon of college students demanding “no platform” policies and “safe spaces” is admirable in its goal of protecting marginalised groups. The passion that marks these efforts is of utmost importance in sparking necessary dialogue and highlighting the ills of society.

Yet, as history demonstrates, restriction of speech might be most deleterious to the very same people that such restrictions want to defend. Hindering informed discussion, which considers the views of all sides, shows the validity of some over others, is likely to be ineffective and even counterproductive in resisting prejudice and offensive ideologies.

To be prepared to oppose bigotry and ignorance one must understand the psychology, logic and needs of the individuals who hold the disagreeable views. This is particularly important given the current political climate of unprecedented polarisation, where precisely those views deemed unacceptable are central to the discourse led by the political elite. To achieve social change, we must engage in a discussion, not exclude our opponents, especially if our rival has substantial political power to influence social affairs, or if—as in the case of contemporary American politics—the “offensive” ideas are held by a majority of the public.

Finger-pointing, name-calling and vilifying controversial speakers and their supporters is futile. Not only does it antagonise potential allies in the fight for justice, but it also fails to acknowledge the reasons why controversial views exist in the first place, or to address any logical, moral or ethical problems inherent in them.

For those who hold those views, strategies of censure and reproach are unlikely to eradicate those convictions and actually risk leading instead to confirmation bias, strengthening the original prejudice. For others—younger people and those unfamiliar with the issues at stake—such strategies fail to educate or demonstrate the rigour of thinking that leads to certain ideological conclusions.

Censorship is not only likely to be ineffective in confronting problems of inequality and prejudice, but it may be achieving the very opposite of what it intends. First, censoring speech that is seen as discriminatory risks perpetuating existing biases by failing to tackle the core of the issues. Second, by giving control over speech to faceless authorities, those who fight for social change forsake their own ability to challenge the status quo, to participate in the destruction of dysfunctional and unjust systems.

My grandparents suffered the oppression of communism. Their contemporaries in America experienced the silencing of political dissidents during the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. Always, it was the goal of protecting community values that motivated oppression. Perhaps the toxic consequences of censorship—a history, where abridging the freedom of expression has been related to the political suppression of important ideological perspectives, especially those of political minorities—are not as salient to our generation, to which free speech is a rather abstract ideal.

Freedom of expression is especially vital in universities. Restricting speech is an assault to freedom of thought, which is fundamental to the main purpose of an educational institution, that of developing students’ ability to think critically and independently. One needs to be exposed to various, and often divergent, perspectives and use fact-based evidence, informed judgment, and robust critical analysis in order to decide which of the many conflicting views are legitimate.

Freedom of thought is therefore vital both to society, which needs this rigorous process to determine the most valuable ideas to regulate and direct it, and to the individual, for whom the liberty to learn from independent decision-making and social feedback is crucial to the notion of human flourishing and self-actualisation. A university that values intellectual inquiry and respects the agency of its students should acknowledge and encourage the student’s ability to distinguish right from wrong, truth from falsehood, fact from conspiracy.

There is a concern that giving microphone to controversial speakers might disrupt the learning environment by causing division. Yet, would not limiting the expression of one group cause more animosity? Perhaps a more significant concern is that for certain less privileged and marginalised groups offensive speech can impede learning by causing psychological damage. The university, however, can (and should) provide platforms where those students could get the necessary support. Considering the high plausibility that the student will sooner or later encounter the upsetting idea, is it not better to experience the distress in the supporting environment of a university campus?

Banning “offensive” speech and creating “safe spaces” may, in fact, be detrimental to students in the long run, going against what is perhaps the second most vital function of a university after education: that of preparing students for professional and personal life outside the university. Once students leave the safe bubble of a college campus, they will inevitably be exposed to divergent and uncomfortable views. Is it not crucial to have the strength of mind to deal with possible distress, or the intellectual agility to fight ignorance and prejudice with a sensible, well-considered system of values and beliefs? Individuals sheltered from discomfort will have to learn the hard way, without the support provided by a college campus, that “this is offensive” is an insufficient response at best. And social change will be deterred by the future leaders’ inability to engage in a constructive discussion of pressing social issues.

An effective response to offensive speakers could be to organise and popularise discussions, where the speakers’ views are questioned and their credibility thoroughly scrutinised. Those who invite and support the speakers can be challenged to open debates, where factual evidence and rational argumentation are provided to expose any existing faults inherent in their opinions. If the speaker’s speech fundamentally disagrees with principal values of the university—such as respect, dignity, diversity and inclusivity—then more speech and public denunciation by both the administration and the student body could simultaneously inform, promote discussion and assert the institution’s commitment to core principles.

Controversial speeches should not, however, be prohibited or censored on university campuses both for the sake of protecting the paramount democratic ideal of freedom of speech and for the more tangible goal of cultivating a space where students are challenged beyond the boundaries of their comfort zone and respected as independent agents, capable of critical inquiry and meaningful defence of their positions. The ability to combat disagreeable ideas with rational arguments and thorough understanding of the opponent will serve both the individual, who develops such ability, and society, which needs a democratic and informed approach to dealing with contentious issues.

___________

Katherine Krem grew up in Sofia, Bulgaria and lives in San Francisco, having recently graduated from Stanford University with degrees in Mathematical and Computational Science, and in Communications.