To discuss the legal and conceptual aspects of freedom of speech, the Office of Equity, Inclusion and Multicultural Affairs personnel brought a panel of faculty members to the critical conversations series program on Feb. 19 in the Legacy Multipurpose Room.
The panel included Donovan Irven, philosophy visiting assistant professor, Angela Cartwright, curriculum and learning assistant professor, Linda Veazey, associate political science professor, Andrea Button, sociology assistant professor, and Jim Sernoe, mass communication department chair and associate professor.
Irven was invited to the panel by Button because of his discipline and interaction with the necessity of this freedom.
“This is a really pressing and important topic that’s impacting us right now that’s happening on campus with some of the flier-ing that has been going on,” Irven said. “It’s a conversation that needs to happen in a sort of thoughtful and conscientious way that I thought together collectively we could all hopefully bring about.”
According to Irven, some fliers around campus included hate speech directed toward other students, and though free speech is an inalienable right, it “always comes with certain responsibilities,” he said.
“There are rights that should be handled with care and that burden you a certain responsibility,” Irven said. “[Jean-Paul] Sartre, a French existentialist, said ‘people are condemned to be free,’ which means that our freedom burdens us to have to make these choices that are weighted with consequences that shape us as how we are as people. So, no it’s not free in the sense that it comes with these heavy responsibilities for us to be able to interact and respect one another.”
For Button’s discipline of sociology, she said they view free speech in two parts: structure and culture, and both factors fuse together to to create what Americans recognize as free speech and culture.
“Structure is laws, it’s policies, it’s institutions, it’s buildings and it’s all of those things,” Button said. “Culture is why does it look the way that it does? This culture is what it informs, what those things are gonna look like.”
Button further explained how sociology “is tasked with studying the culture of why” and how it breaks down in two different forms.
“You have ideal culture and your real culture. Ideal culture is this is what we say we are: “We’re a nation of freedom, we’re a nation of equality, we’re a nation of free speech, we’re a nation of xyz ideally. Ideal culture is abstract, ideal is something that you hope to have,” Andrea Button said.
Although the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution are extended to all American citizens, Cartwright said people view the First Amendment in an individualist point of view, and not as an extension to others. When talking about freedom, Cartwright said people will default to “really fluffy stuff” where people think they can do whatever they want without considering how it will impact those around them.
“Particularly in the United States, we have this very individualistic idea of what freedom means: it’s about my rights and don’t you dare infringe upon them,” Cartwright said.
According to Greene, current society views individuals as more important than people as a whole, which causes a division between people.
“If people see it as ‘It’s my right and I can do with that right as I please,” without any consequence or without any concern for others who may be impacted by their free speech, then it’s always going to be about what I want and not what’s best for the greater good” Greene said. “The idea of individualism vs. collectivism is in the DNA and is in the thread of America.”
Because that thread is ingrained in Americans “for the past 200 years,” Green said she isn’t sure there is enough energy or time to change our behavior, but with time, she said, we can always move forward.
Because America was founded on these values, Veazey said freedom of speech is “central to democracy” and one of the ways to measure democracies is to think of “tolerating dissen,” and how Europeans hate speech is “usually limited” in comparison to America.
“That doesn’t mean that they don’t have freedom of speech in European union countries, they certainly do, but they have an idea of limits that we don’t,” Veazey said. “The basic premise of a lot of our legal tradition has been that words by themselves don’t hurt unless they’re incorporated with action.”
Through that incorporation, Sernoe, said the “first amendment is not absolute,” and consequences to actions and words are met through legal jurisdiction.
After being exposed to the multiple angles free speech offers, Catherine Stepniak, psychology and sociology senior, said free speech is an issue she cares about, but when talking about free speech, Stepniak said hate speech “inevitably” comes up and hate speech has been directed towards minority communities as such as the black community.
“I loved the event because of how many perspectives it brought up and I thought it was a pretty good turn out, I mean, the room was filled,” Stepniak said. “I learn more about the legal aspect as a sociology major, we’re generally talking about the ideal vs. real culture and to go into the legal aspect was interesting.”
The next Critical Conversations will be March 26 and April 23 from 4—5:30 p.m.