The Undergraduate Council has long waded into difficult territory in its aim to advocate for the students, but one of its recent moves around freedom of speech has attracted some controversy. On October 4th, the UC unanimously passed a resolution to review Harvard’s Free Speech Guidelines, a set of principles adopted in 1990 that outlines the University’s approach to freedom of speech, the invitation and treatment of guest speakers, and other areas pertaining to free expression.
The resolution was sponsored by Lowell Representative LyLena Estabine ’24 and proposed to create a Review Committee at the next faculty meeting on November 2nd to discuss the guidelines, though not with any immediate recommended changes. The resolution states it partially originated from “several incidents where the issue of free speech was called into question,” and Estabine clarified two in particular: the invitation of political scientist Charles Murray ’65 to Gov 50 and the presence of Eliese Stefanik ’06, Republican U.S. representative for New York, on an IOP committee. Both instances caused uproar from some students during the 2020-21 school year. Gov 50 soon became entangled in another controversy over blog posts authored by David Kane, the course instructor, around fraught statistical and racial topics.
While the initial proposal passed without much note, The Harvard Crimson’s Editorial Board soon weighed in with concerns. The Board stated they were “extremely wary of any attempt to reduce or alter the freedoms that these guidelines promote. We worry that a committee such as the one the UC proposes, at least without understanding the true purpose of the legislation, would threaten to do just that.” They also defended the principles of the original guidelines stating that, aside from speakers promoting a “grave disrespect for the dignity of others,” all other speakers should remain allowed to come, and they argued against “deplatforming” even noxious individuals.
Estabine thinks The Crimson’s editorial misunderstands the UC’s objectives and what the proposal does. She noted that Section 7 of the Guidelines allows for the creation of a Faculty Council committee to discuss the application of such principles in tough situations. “What [this proposal] seeks to do is not only re-assure the student body and faculty that free speech and inclusion can be simultaneously pursued and protected, but provide a permanent forum for when these issues arise in future years,” Estabine said. The proposed committee seeks to establish a centralized forum to discuss this, and the meeting is only there to open up discussion, not to immediately propose changes, she added.
Part of the confusion may stem from the lack of availability of the resolution. As of October 27th, the official UC website’s archive page only extends to the Summer 2020 session, and it does not include any of the minutes and agendas of its Fall Session meetings, nor does it currently list the current slate of representatives. The minutes are only accessible via the UC’s weekly update email, which many may not have seen. The UC did not respond to a request for information and notification about the website.
While the UC insists they are merely opening dialogue without any definitive changes in mind, initiating the committee process suggests that any current rules are subject to modification and replacement. The resolution itself mentions that the Dean of Students Office has “renewed their commitment to diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, and anti-xenophobia,” as its second preambulatory clause, and mentions the guidelines can help “Harvard’s new, anti-racist agenda” in the subsequent clause. The resolution’s last operative clause states that “if this endeavor fails, a proposal to update the Freedom of Speech Guidelines will be submitted to the FAS [Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Commission of Inquiry.” Even though the UC has no changes slated for now, the resolution resolves to propose some if nothing comes out of these exploratory meetings.
The UC’s most recent actions pertaining to speech point in the same direction. In November of 2019, The Crimson reported on an “Abolish ICE” rally by pro-immigration group Act on A Dream and asked an ICE spokesperson for comment. In response, Act on a Dream circulated a petition rebuking The Crimson, claiming that “request for comment is virtually the same as tipping them off, regardless of how they are contacted” and organizing a boycott of the paper. Despite defenses of The Crimson from newspapers such as the Washington Post, the UC passed a resolution endorsing the Act on a Dream’s critiques against them. The Crimson initially stood by their reporting but eventually agreed to some restrictions on their reporters in the future. The UC also endorsed the removal of David Kane after the blog posts were brought up by students. Though the specifics of each case vary, the UC has thus far reflected the progressive outlook stated in their proposal.
The UC’s ultimate position remains unconfirmed, but the process of changing the Guidelines suggests it is unlikely they will suddenly change. The resolution proposes that the Review Committee will be split between students with faculty and administrators. After an application process, the group will then deliberate amongst themselves and consult other offices and students on campus before they draft a report. The report will be sent to the FAS, who will vote on any proposed changes, and the committee will exist afterwards to discuss future considerations as needed.
In short, the committee is structured to allow for multiple discussions, administrative meetings, and votes before any report even comes out. Though the structure is not wholly fixed, the process aims for requiring multiple consultory steps before any concrete action, if any recommendations arise at all. The actual committee may work out differently in practice, as both the FAS guidelines and the proposal are at some points vague, but the structure aims to give enough time for considerations and feedback throughout the process. The next steps will come after the November 2nd faculty meeting, depending on whether the proposal is approved.
Freedom of expression at universities has attracted much debate and consternation over the years, with multiple activist and academic projects devoted to tracking incidents. Tensions already flared this semester when administrators took down a flag of a bikini-clad Niki Minaj from a Mather dorm window, which resulted in students ordering and displaying more flags in solidarity. The UC hopes to avoid any similar public flare-ups with their proposal, but even this early backlash points to a campus uncertain about the best ways to balance freedom of expression.
Ryan Golemme ’23 (ryangolemme@college.harvard.edu), an occasional motormouth when he gets excited, writes for the Independent.