Critical Analysis of The Article Protecting The Freedom of Expression on Campus by Derek Bok

Should we Limit Free Speech?

Racism, hate speech, and confederate flags are all hot button issues you see on the news every day. Although legal through the First Amendment, the debate that commonly arises is when we ask: can we censor these inconsiderate actions? Specifically, do private universities have the legal power to limit free speech? If so, should they actually limit free speech? Derek Bok who currently serves as a lawyer and educator, was once the president of Harvard University, and is the author of the article Protecting the Freedom of Expression on Campus; this article was released in the Boston Globe during 1991. In the article, Bok strongly states his belief that controversial symbols, hate speech, etc should all be allowed in Harvard University, as well as every other private university in the USA. Besides the fact that the First Amendment legalizes this form of communication, Bok also believes that it gives students and faculty the opportunity to speak to possibly misguided and ill minded students in hopes they change their insensitive beliefs. Backing this belief by stating that censorship of these radical views not only draws more attention to student and their offensive action, but it can also lead to more demonstrations and publicity to these hurtful beliefs. Ultimately, Bok believes that Harvard University’s policy should allow their students full access to their rights given by the First Amendment. Bok believes that this approach will deter students who seek attention through their insensitive actions from performing these actions ever again.

In Bok’s article, he mainly structures his argument around the Classical Model, which incorporates a logical structure that uses ethos, pathos, and logos to support his main argument. First, Bok establishes that the actions taken by the Harvard students, waving Confederate flags and swastikas, is legal under the free speech protection given by the First Amendment. He then establishes his stance on insensitive views, “(the) satisfaction it gives students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to many others” (70). This was a very logical move, showing his disapproval of the students actions, but it also calms the reader and puts aside any idea that Bok is trying to defend radical ideas in this article. It also states his first assumption, which he believes that students who perform insensitive actions, do it for their own satisfaction. This assumption is important because he is stating that main reason why the students show these controversial symbols is to draw attention themselves. Which, he believes should not be prohibited at Harvard University because, “(disapproval) of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it” (70). This statement is the thesis of Bok’s article, just because the action or speech is hurtful or insensitive, doesn’t mean that the community should censor the topic.

Bok’s first supporting evidence is one of logic, “Under the Supreme Court’s ruling… swastikas or Confederate flags clearly fall within the protection of free speech.” He uses this basis to make an ethical claim, “censorship is so dangerous.” Backing this idea up, Bok presents this idea that because we are humans, a value judgement to censor confederate flags can easily spiral into something broader, such as censoring offensive speakers. Using this to transition into an empathetic claim, that “no community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say. The worst offenders will simply find other ways to irritate and insult” (70). Instead of hiding our tension points, Bok believes that we should tackle those member’s beliefs head on in efforts to change them.

When Bok offers a solution to the problem with controversial messages at Harvard University, he uses a Toulmin approach because his solution is based off of the main assumption that the students do this for personal pleasure, attention. Bok suggests that Harvard University, and all other private schools, “ignore them” (71). He implies that these displays of radical views are just for show. Bok believes that if we reach out to the student to console them and help them understand the effects insensitive views cause on other students, that they will stop. Bok believes that censorship does not work in the long term, but “persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect” in terms of ending hateful speech on campuses (71). Bok believes this is the only way for campuses create a supportive community based on mutual respect for one another.

As the reader, there can be grounds for questioning or even rejecting Bok’s proposal. One basis to question and or reject his proposal is on his assumption that students display hateful symbols because they seek attention and the pleasure that they can derive from it. How does he know? Bok does not state any statistics or even surveys that show a majority, or even a minority, of students who perform these slanderous actions do it on the basis of attention. Can’t we also make the same assumption, likewise without providing any evidence, that students display these symbols because they strongly believe in them? Harvard like all other universities, wants their student body to be extremely diverse, hence racial quotas. With diversity, you get students on each side of the political and ideological spectrum. There are geniuses who believe communism can create an ideal society, and then there are geniuses who believe the same for fascism. Likewise, some academically smart students may still believe that blacks are the cancer to American society and should be sent back to their country of origin. Bok’s thesis has a giant hole in it, his assumption that students only show controversial symbols because they’re seeking attention. As shown, this assumption can be easily refuted due to his lack of statistical evidence and questioning of logic.

Overall I do believe Bok makes a strong case for his argument and solution. The idea that some places in America can have more free speech than another part is horrific. As he stated, censorship can be used for good, but because of how powerful it is, it is easy to overextend the power to possibly one day censor specific speakers or activist. For example, it can prevent people from entering Harvard’s campus not because they are a mass murderer, but rather a speaker whose ideas do not coincide with the administration at Harvard University. Bok implies that this can be used vise versa; what if Harvard’s administration was strongly racist and they blocked a speaker because (s)he believed in interracial marriage? While in the modern era, this may seem like an impossible example, we use examples from the past to determine how we operate in the future. Bok is trying to prevent Harvard from setting an example that can be used for malicious purposes in future administrations at Harvard University and other private universities as well. His solution is also very logical, people do controversial things for attention. If we take the time to talk to them, it’s possible we may be able to help them see the truth, which will in turn pull them away from their bigoted beliefs or actions.