‘Think Again’ Event Discusses the State of Free Speech at UVA

This past Wednesday, UVA President Jim Ryan gave introductory remarks inside the Hotel E Garden Room on the West Range for an event titled “What Should We Do About Free Speech at UVA?”

The event, sponsored by the Think Again @ UVA Initiative, featured a panel of students and faculty, including politics professor John Owen, fourth-year student Emma Camp, who recently penned an opinion piece in the New York Times about freedom of speech on college campuses, fourth-year student Will Mallas, Co-Editor in Chief of The Jefferson Independent, and politics professor Mary Kate Cary. Editors of the Cavalier Daily were also invited to participate, but none attended. 

The address took place before a packed room of about 100 students, faculty and staff, alumni, and supporters of the University. Professor Cary, the host of the event, noted that the superb attendance proved how much of a hot button issue free speech is at UVA.

In his introductory remarks, Ryan argued that policies and ideas regarding freedom of speech should be a matter of principle, not politics: “The First Amendment protects offensive speech precisely because the alternative would be someone like me or the University would have to be the arbiter of what’s offensive and what’s not.” 

Referencing two recent free speech controversies that have sparked outrage at UVA—the  F- UVA Lawn door posting last year, and calls by the Cavalier Daily to cancel former Vice President Mike Pence’s upcoming visit to Grounds—Ryan explained that there was a good deal of overlap between the groups outraged by one and supportive of the other. 

For example, Ryan noted that many who were quick to defend the posting of offensive material on Lawn room doors were also the first to call for the canceling of Mike Pence, while those who took offense to the lack of a University response condemning the offensive postings on the Lawn were the first to defend Pence’s platform to speak at UVA. 

The president also lectured that performing an act simply because one has the right to does not necessarily mean the act is right or good. In other words, just because one might have the right to say something, it does not necessarily mean they should say it. Therefore, this protection of speech, he argued, does not prevent character assassination or calls for the silencing of another, as those examples are still protected speech. Countering this sentiment, he spoke as to how students shouldn’t aspire to that ideal, but instead be “empathetic speakers and generous listeners.”

Following Ryan’s remarks, the panel began with a discussion of the recently drafted Statement of the Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry, which was unanimously adopted by the University Board of Visitors in June of last year. Professor Cary, who served on the Committee, explained why they decided to create their own, UVA-focused statement, rather than adopting another one such as the highly discussed Chicago Statement.

Cary stated, “If you read the Chicago Statement, it’s two pages long, and the whole first page is how great the University of Chicago is— and so, understandably, why would we sign that? But secondly… it doesn’t go to some of the broader points that we wanted in our statement. I think there was a great reason to talk about Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, and James Monroe, and not just talk about the University of Chicago. And my hope is, that some of the other Virginia schools especially… would sign our statement because it is broader, it goes to the founding of our nation, it talks about our founding principles, and so that was one of our goals.”

“We endorse principles of free expression and free inquiry not because every idea is equally good. To the contrary, universities test and assess ideas every day… Academic commitment to free inquiry reflects the view that every idea must be heard so that it may be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny necessary to advance knowledge,” says the committee in the statement. 

Each of the panelists were then asked about their thoughts on the statement, as well as what they thought could be done to better free speech at UVA. Camp suggested that the University be more consistent in its actions regarding the enforcement of free speech on Grounds. She noted that while the restriction of speech on the Lawn room doors was legal, she didn’t believe that it was in line with UVA’s statement: “the only thing I would add to [the statement] is… for the University to abide by this a little more consistently.”

Professor Cary also suggested the teaching of courses by professors with different viewpoints. She noted that in her co-taught classes, students who were able to argue the other side of an argument were much more empathetic to the opposing point of view and were less likely to attack the other side’s character. “Something that I’ve gotten to be able to do the last few years, and that’s co-teach classes with a colleague. I’m a Republican and she’s a Democrat, and we co-teach politics classes together. [The students] were hungry for that, they want to hear both sides, and I think it could be something we do outside of just politics classes… You could have a Marxist and a free-marketeer co-teaching. You could have people of different faiths teaching religious studies classes side by side. So I think there’s all kind of potential to hear multiple viewpoints in the classroom, and I’m hoping we can do more of that.”

Mallas, though he liked the document, said it was unfortunate that it needed to be crafted in the first place, since UVA is a public institution and therefore legally required to abide by the First Amendment. Referencing a recent case in the medical school where a student was removed for questioning the definition of a microaggression, he suggested that the school adopt a more meaningful policy that actually protects students who say things that might be deemed offensive by others: “If the school had something explicit that said — ‘We’re going to protect you if you say something that other people don’t like’ — it would really benefit the student body.”

The event, which was the first to ever be held by Think Again @ UVA, came in the wake of much discussion about free speech on Grounds. Camp’s recent piece in the New York Times, as well as the Cavalier Daily’s editorial claiming Mike Pence’s “dangerous rhetoric is not entitled to a platform,” prompted tense debate at the University and also received considerable attention on the national level.

The Think Again @ UVA Initiative will be hosting another event on April 28th in Nau Hall to commemorate the death of Otto Warmbier, a former UVA student who was tortured and detained by the North Korean government for over a year, subsequently dying from sustained injuries. The event will include Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector, William Burgess, Otto’s fraternity brother, as well as Sai Parkash, a UVA Law professor. The event will memorialize his life and discuss with students and guests what Americans should learn from his death five years later.