opinion

Op-ed: ‘Children’s revolt’ at Purdue, you say?

On Nov. 11, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels sent a campuswide email commenting on where he saw Purdue’s place in the growing national student movement against white supremacy.

“Events this week at the University of Missouri and Yale University should remind us all of the importance of absolute fidelity to our shared values,” Daniels began before launching into a celebration of campus policies. “What a proud contrast to the environments that appear to prevail at places like Missouri and Yale.”

Nowhere in the letter did Daniels reference the three consecutive years of student demonstrations that have demanded the administration address issues of white supremacy, homophobia and economic exploitation. As Daniels sent this message, however, over a hundred students met to discuss plans to stand in solidarity with the students of Mizzou and address racism in Greater Lafayette. Student after student used the hashtags #PUStandsWithMizzou, #BoilersOfPurdue and #HowManyMoreFires to describe instances of racial slurs, death threats, micro-aggressions and unchecked white racial biases. The meeting ended with a plan to rally on Friday.

At 2 p.m. Nov. 13, the rally went forward. Chants were made denouncing racism, and later online debate turned to one specific aspect of Daniels’ email, namely the argument that the recent “free speech” policy at Purdue had made it possible to avoid the same problems at Mizzou and Yale. Daniels, of course, did not mention that over the course of the year this policy has served as a major stumbling block for administrators and college officials to counter, and even criticize, right-wing ministers on campus harassing students. Many of these students have been members of Purdue’s Muslim and LGBTQ community. These students’ concerns have been addressed by saying that all speech is protected at Purdue.

This policy, which empowers right-wing groups, is the same policy Daniels believes helps foster healthy dialog and inclusion. Granted, a strict civil libertarian at this point would argue that free speech, including even the most heinous of sentiments, should be protected. That would be a defensible position for Purdue if we actually were consistent in enforcing the policy.

However, just this year, as students were repeatedly told by university officials that right-wing hate speech had to be tolerated, student candidates for city council and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist faced hurdles in exercising free speech at Purdue. Both incidents were noted as examples of censorship on campus, despite Purdue’s commitment to “free speech.”

“Free speech” has become a handy euphemism for telling people, often minorities, that sexist, racist, classist and homophobic speech is protected, and that they should not be “coddled” from hearing upsetting views. This is incredibly nefarious when we compare this idea to the way those same groups are told to engage in “civility politics” so that a “healthy dialogue” can be fostered.

What we are left with is a conception of “free speech” that reinforces positions of power in the public sphere, while marginalizing actors who are pushing for a more inclusive and nondiscriminatory discourse. Minorities are repeatedly criticized for any form of speech that makes whites uncomfortable, because such feelings “close off discussions.” In this way “free speech” emboldens certain actors while curtailing others. Therefore, the way in which many envision the public sphere as an apolitical ground for Enlightenment-style debate is flawed. The public sphere is a reflection of social, cultural, political, and economic power. We should use that sphere, then, and our speech, to challenge those power imbalances.

The Wall Street Journal has rallied to support Daniels’ statements, and criticize student activists. This is not particularly surprising, given the Wall Street Journal’s politics. But their specific criticism of college campus activism is telling. They have called the demands against white supremacy, academic economic exploitation, and institutional racism “a children’s revolt.” This attempt to infantilize those they see as their opponents is unimpressive, and begs the question — who is the one denigrating the level of discussion?

Also, if we remember Hans Christian Anderson, it was a child that told the emperor he had no clothes. All the adults in the kingdom lacked the courage and honesty to speak truth to power. Therefore, to all my friends, colleagues and fellow activists at every campus pushing back on the current disastrous policies in higher education, don’t be discouraged. Lead a children’s revolt if that is what it takes. Tell the emperors of our country they are naked. Our free speech demands it.

Bishop is a doctoral student in history and a member of the Purdue Social Justice Coalition.