To Educate or Indoctrinate?
By: Anthony Bisconti III
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to free speech. Yet this fundamental liberty is not preserved on Lehigh’s campus. Instead, political correctness has paved the way to restrictive speech codes that govern what can and cannot be said. Of course, private universities are by no means required to adhere to the principles of free speech as outlined in the Constitution. The First Amendment merely prevents the government from abridging freedom of speech. It does not prevent private organizations from doing so. But the argument is not that Lehigh is violating any law relating to free expression – clearly it is not. Rather, the reasoning is that as an institution of higher education, it has an obligation to foster free speech in a capacity at least equal to that of the Constitution.
Lehigh’s speech code is buried within its Policy on Harassment. In part, this policy is legitimate in that it appropriately defines what would typically be considered harassment in a court of law. In fact, section 1.3 would suggest that the university fully adheres to open discussion: “Lehigh University upholds the principles of academic freedom and free speech.”i Unfortunately, subsequent sections directly contradict that mission.
For instance, section 2.1 defines what can constitute a hostile work, learning, co-curricular, social, or living environment: “when a member of the Lehigh University community or a guest is subjected to unwelcome statements, jokes, gestures, pictures, touching, or other conducts that offend, demean, harass, or intimidate.”ii The scope and ambiguity of this single statement enables pretty much anything that an individual says or does to be classified as creating a hostile environment if someone perceives it as such.
Section 2.1.3 provides further clarification on stereotyping: “Statements that demean people on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status can also contribute to a hostile work or educational environment.”iii The policy even details a few examples, just in case it is not clear enough that otherwise insignificant events can be called into question. For instance, even something as benign as “to ask an older colleague why she or he hasn’t retired”iv could constitute the basis of a hostile environment complaint.
The range of what could be considered a hostile environment is extremely unsettling. Instead of encouraging healthy debate, these policies deter students and professors alike from engaging in discussion and challenging the status quo. By Lehigh’s standards, merely asking a question could result in the threat of disciplinary action if someone finds that question to be intimidating. As absurd as it may seem, such occurrences have taken place, both at Lehigh and at other institutions facing similar challenges. Raising questions, challenging the norm, and developing a greater sense of understanding are not only innately harmless, but should be the basis for higher education and societal maturation.
A recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirms that speech codes similar to Lehigh’s could not exist at a public university. Temple University maintained a speech code with language bearing a striking resemblance to that of Lehigh’s policies. Among other things, it prohibited “generalized sexist remarks and behavior.” The opinion, DeJohn v. Temple University, upheld a decision by a federal district court that the university’s former speech code was unconstitutional.v
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization dedicated to defending First Amendment rights in higher education. In an August 4th press release, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said that the decision “serves as unequivocal notice to university administrators across the country that the First Amendment still applies on campus.”vi FIRE’s Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, William Creeley, commented on the ruling as having “dealt a devastating defeat to those seeking to infantilize our nation’s college students.”vii
The Third Circuit’s opinion is a clear indication that restrictive speech codes are not tolerated at public universities. Unfortunately, the same liberties do not apply at Lehigh. But this contrast begs the question: how could a top-ranked university like Lehigh provide its students and faculty with fewer opportunities to engage in a free exchange of ideas than a public university? How is our education better off when certain words, topics, or ideas are off-limits?
Making a subject off-limits does nothing to solve the underlying issue. It is only through open discussion that all perspectives can be presented and true understanding can be achieved. To that end, it is also important to come to the realization that not everybody is going to agree. Silencing one side of the argument only serves to further hostilities. Moving beyond the Lehigh bubble, where the First Amendment reigns, individuals who are offended by the statements of others have no right to reprisal.
A college education should prepare students for the real world. It must not impede the discussion of any single point of view, even if the prevailing consensus deems that opinion to be wrong. Any effort to do so is censorship and should cause the student body to question what they are really getting: an education or indoctrination?
Lehigh’s policies, as they stand, demonstrate that the university holds little regard for an open and free exchange of ideas, instead placing higher priority on the winds of political correctness. Perhaps it is time that the administration takes a second look at the true implications of these policies and questions whether they fully embody the principles of academic freedom that the university has a responsibility to uphold.
(Endnotes)
i. http://www.lehigh.edu/~policy/university/harassment.htm
ii. Ibid.
iii. Ibid.
iv. Ibid.
v. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9573.html
vi. Ibid.
vii. Ibid.
