As I have read through the UNM policies, procedures and guidance regarding activities and freedom of speech on UNM campus, I think first about what special nature a university has in contrast to private individuals, companies and government organizations.
Does a university have a greater responsibility to foster free speech and activities than other organizations? I think this responsibility may not be quite clear. Universities are businesses and have to function with ever tightening budgets as well as competition from other educational and non-educational institutions.
I have read several current reports on the restriction of free speech at other universities, and I am forced to recognize that universities across the world prioritize financial commitments. But what has changed about on-campus free-speech activities the last few years that affects finances?
I think it would be accepted that we have seen an ever increasing level of anger and physical violence take place between groups of different religious views. I thought it was funny when I first became aware of “glitter bombing“ — throwing glitter on speakers, book signers and others. I don’t think so anymore.
What has happened so that we, as a people, have taken to shouting down others or throwing glitter — or even paint — on someone we disagree with?
In addition, a university is no different than my home when it comes to inviting someone in. There is some level of responsibility to protect the visitors. That is what we do in our society. We extend this logic to professional sports games, business offices and other places, and I imagine every one of us expects UNMPD to protect us on campus.
What I am getting at is that there are several intersecting issues that require discussion, and I think these are more important than whether “free” or “hate” speech is allowed on campus.
UNM administration is fully aware of the escalating levels of hatred and reactions between groups and individuals around the globe. They know that not managing or containing some individuals and groups may result in violence.
The way the University protects the participants at free speech events — in addition to innocent members in the audience or students on campus — is what I think is much more important than whether UNM or any university allows or disallows these events.
When the Nonie Darwish incident happened, I remember asking Desi Brown, a peace studies professor on campus, what kind of security the University had provided. I was shocked that UNM would even allow this type of event and not require some security. Why?
I think the University has simply not processed the consequences of inadequate protection of individuals at on-campus events.
I have thought about what happens when things or individuals get out of control. This, for me, is not about the right to assemble or free speech. It is about not having anyone, including people I know and care about, injured or possibly killed because of a lack of police presence.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
We have tuition and fee increases coming. Where is the line item to provide increased UNM police services at speech or protest events? Where is the line item on training UNMPD on how to use nonviolent procedures and measures to ensure peaceful activities at events that center on charged and volatile issues on campus?
Our problem is our safety on campus as we exercise our opportunity to practice free speech.
If UNM had trained police at the event and also someone from the protest group who respected the rules for respect for guest speakers, this might not have escalated.
For this discussion, I have been using the terms “free speech” and “hate speech.” I don’t want to ignore the topic of free speech and hate speech. In looking at UNM’s codes regarding Freedom of Expression and Dissent, University Business Policies and Procedures Manual 2220, Effective Date: Jan. 14, 2002, I don’t see any real substance as to UNM addressing hate speech. The University manages to duck its responsibility, just as with police protection, with this statement:
“The exchange of diverse viewpoints may expose people to ideas some find offensive, even abhorrent. The way that ideas are expressed may cause discomfort to those who disagree with them. The appropriate response to such speech is speech expressing opposing ideas and continued dialogue, not curtailment of speech.”
The University could write a hate speech code and be responsible by monitoring events where hate speech is escalating to confrontation, and while not curtailing free speech, it could still influence speakers and respondents through punitive measures that state unrestrained hate speech will not be tolerated.
People can be influenced to moderate their own behavior, but they have to have rules and consequences.
