Policies on Expression

Free expression

From the Undergraduate Regulations

The Yale College Faculty has formally endorsed as an official policy of Yale College the following statement from the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale, published in January 1975.

The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.

We take a chance, as the First Amendment takes a chance, when we commit ourselves to the idea that the results of free expression are to the general benefit in the long run, however unpleasant they may appear at the time. The validity of such a belief cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It is a belief of recent historical development, even within universities, one embodied in American constitutional doctrine but not widely shared outside the academic world, and denied in theory and in practice by much of the world most of the time.

Because few other institutions in our society have the same central function, few assign such high priority to freedom of expression. Few are expected to. Because no other kind of institution combines the discovery and dissemination of basic knowledge with teaching, none confronts quite the same problems as a university.

For if a university is a place for knowledge, it is also a special kind of small society. Yet it is not primarily a fellowship, a club, a circle of friends, a replica of the civil society outside it. Without sacrificing its central purpose, it cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect. To be sure, these are important values; other institutions may properly assign them the highest, and not merely a subordinate priority; and a good university will seek and may in some significant measure attain these ends. But it will never let these values, important as they are, override its central purpose. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.

If the priority assigned to free expression by the nature of a university is to be maintained in practice, clearly the responsibility for maintaining that priority rests with its members. By voluntarily taking up membership in a university and thereby asserting a claim to its rights and privileges, members also acknowledge the existence of certain obligations upon themselves and their fellows. Above all, every member of the university has an obligation to permit free expression in the university. No member has a right to prevent such expression. Every official of the university, moreover, has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed.

The strength of these obligations, and the willingness to respect and comply with them, probably depend less on the expectation of punishment for violation than they do on the presence of a widely shared belief in the primacy of free expression. Nonetheless, we believe that the positive obligation to protect and respect free expression shared by all members of the university should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions, because obstruction of such expression threatens the central function of the university. We further believe that such sanctions should be made explicit, so that potential violators will be aware of the consequences of their intended acts.

In addition to the university’s primary obligation to protect free expression there are also ethical responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. Though these are much more difficult to state clearly, they are of great importance. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding. Shock, hurt, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly. No member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use, slurs and epithets intended to discredit another’s race, ethnic group, religion, or sex. It may sometimes be necessary in a university for civility and mutual respect to be superseded by the need to guarantee free expression. The values superseded are nevertheless important, and every member of the university community should consider them in exercising the fundamental right to free expression.

We have considered the opposing argument that behavior which violates these social and ethical considerations should be made subject to formal sanctions, and the argument that such behavior entitles others to prevent speech they might regard as offensive. Our conviction that the central purpose of the university is to foster the free access of knowledge compels us to reject both of these arguments. They assert a right to prevent free expression. They rest upon the assumption that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive. They deny what Justice Holmes termed “freedom for the thought that we hate.” They make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.

The conclusions we draw, then, are these: even when some members of the university community fail to meet their social and ethical responsibilities, the paramount obligation of the university is to protect their right to free expression. This obligation can and should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions. If the university’s overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained, secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of suasion, example, and argument.

Peaceful dissent, protests, and demonstrations

In view of the obligation of Yale or of any university to promote the free expression of all views, the campus is open to any speaker whom students or members of the faculty have invited and for whom official arrangements to speak have been made with the University. The right of free expression in a university also includes the right to peaceful dissent, protests in peaceable assembly, and orderly demonstrations which include picketing and the distribution of leaflets. These are permitted on the Yale campus, subject to approval as to schedule and location by the appropriate University official, until or unless they disrupt regular or essential operations of the University or significantly infringe upon the rights of others, particularly the right to listen to a speech or lecture. It is a violation of University regulations for any member of the faculty, staff, or student body to prevent the orderly conduct of a University function or activity, such as a lecture, meeting, interview (including a job interview), ceremony, or other public event. It is similarly a violation of University regulations to block the legitimate activity of any person on the Yale campus or in any Yale building or facility. Demonstrations or protests which exceed these limits will subject the participants to temporary or permanent separation from the University.

The Woodward Report

Freedom of expression is especially important in an academic community, where the search for truth holds a primary value. In 1975, a committee chaired by the late C. Vann Woodward, one of Yale’s most distinguished professors, issued the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale, informally called the Woodward Report. This document emphasizes that the history of intellectual growth and discovery demonstrates the need to be able to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” The report acknowledges that this freedom may sometimes make life uncomfortable in a small society such as a college. But it also asserts that “because no other institution combines the discovery and dissemination of basic knowledge with teaching, few need assign such high priority to it.”

The Woodward Report is a document worth reading in full.

Yale Daily News editorial by Dean Peter Salovey

Published: Monday, January 29, 2007
The Yale Daily News

In face of intolerance, reflection is crucial

by Peter Salovey

In recent months, a number of incidents have taken place on the Yale campus that disturb the sense of community most of us value and are accustomed to here. We have witnessed anti-Muslim cartoon postings; words considered blatantly offensive by many students in campus publications; and a homophobic incident that was not meant to hurt or harm, but did so nevertheless.

I often hear students speak of living in the Yale “bubble” — a mythic place separated from the harsher realities of the world by an invisible barrier that protects and shields. For those who believe that Yale should be an exemplar of values and a model of tolerance and acceptance, it can be doubly disturbing to see the bubble burst.

That happens when there are attacks on the principles and beliefs that form the basis of community within the University. Words or actions, articles or flyers, that promote hateful views, particularly when directed at religious or ethnic backgrounds, are especially distressing. What has made certain of them even more troubling is their anonymity. The cowardly nature of flyers, posted in the middle of the night without attribution, is deeply offensive and counter to everything Yale represents.

Over 30 years ago, a committee of Yale faculty and students met at President Kingman Brewster’s request to reflect on the role of freedom of expression in the University. The report that emerged from this committee, known familiarly as the Woodward Report, in honor of its chair, the distinguished historian C. Vann Woodward, has become one of the nation’s most respected documents on free expression (and I urge you to read it). It affirms the special responsibility for a university community to uphold its members’ rights to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable,” even in the face of words and acts that members find abhorrent.

In response to the recent distressing acts, we must strive to understand how free expression and a tolerant community coexist. The kinds of initiatives that the Dean’s Office and many students have proposed, some of which are now in place, others of which are being planned, represent opportunities to reflect on considerations of free expression in a context of tolerance and respect. These include an increased focus on diversity in its many forms as part of freshman orientation programs; residential college-centered conversations that draw in those who may not have been part of these dialogues in the past; discussions between groups who need a better understanding of one another; forums and speakers from a wide array of backgrounds; and panels and speakers that reflect on the role and responsibility of the student media.

In addition, I believe we can take a lesson from the response of an associate University chaplain, Shamshad Sheikh, to the recent anonymous flyers. She did not lash out or blame; instead, she welcomed all to a dialogue. With a forgiving spirit, she encouraged those who posted these drawings to attend prayer meetings on Fridays at 1:00 in Bingham, or to meet with the Muslim community for Halal dinner in Commons on Wednesday evenings. It would be wonderful if those who were responsible for the posters were influenced by this invitation and were able to respond in the same spirit, and with the same grace and good will, as those they victimized.

As your dean, I look forward to engaging with you in an ongoing conversation about the values held dear on this campus, including both free expression and mutual respect.

Peter Salovey is the dean of Yale College and the Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology. Read the article in its entirey (PDF).