Free speech on college campuses has been disputed for nearly a century. The issue was initially brought to the public’s concern with the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, created by the Association of American University Presses. Following historian and accused white supremacist Paul Gottfried’s appearance on campus — and the subsequent student and faculty response — Hamilton has begun to grapple with issues of campus free speech. In the 2017 Hamilton Alumni Review, President Wippman wrote an op-ed article addressing and defending free speech at the College.

“Suppressing speech, even offensive speech, runs counter to the aims of a liberal education,” Wippman wrote in his article. Although he sees offensive speech as counterproductive, he denounces those who see violence as a proper response to such speech. Those who disagree with controversial speakers, Wippman explained, should instead seek other more peaceful options. The President encouraged students “to express in positive terms community values of diversity and inclusion and use our own speech to build the kind of community we want Hamilton to be.”

This article elicited varying responses from both students and faculty. Members of both communities expressed mixed views, with many indicating simulatenous support for free speech and concern for allowing the proliferation of hate speech.

Professor Philip Klinker, the James S. Sherman Professor of Political Science and Government Department Chair, argued that while free speech should be protected, the values and costs of the speech must be weighed.

“As educators, we need to think not just about is the speech allowed by law, but what value of [the speech] is. We must look at what is going to be of the most value, [and] not just of what is going to educate people. We need to ask if this helps us as a community, and if the value outweighs the cost,” said Klinker. “Speech is not this abstract thing — it is linked up with historical and contemporary political viewpoints.”

“We must look at the political context of the speech, because these aren’t just words, but are words that have been associated with historical and contemporary acts,” Klinkner explained, adding, “We must judge to what extent is allowing free speech giving legitimacy or support to those movements.”

The Spectator

also spoke to Professor of History Robert Paquette, who is also the co-founder of Alexander Hamilton Institute — the group which brought Mr. Gottfried to campus. Paquette indicated that delineating a limit on free speech could serve as a dangerous and slippery slope, as he instead advocated for largely unlimited discourse.

“[T]he expansive sphere of free speech that persons on campus once enjoyed, regardless of political persuasion, is now threatened by holier-than-thou elements who think they own the place,” said Paquette.

“Unhappily, college mission statements, once focused, clear, and defensible, have become rather thin gruel and can hardly be regarded anymore as potions of defense against those who seek to politicize everything.”

Paquette, in response to President Wippman’s article, noted that while a college president must navigate the issue carefully, he also recodified his view of free speech as needing to be unrestrained.

“Whether the exercise of speech on campus remains vigorous or not will depend on a combination of wisdom and courage. That combination of attributes from what I’ve seen here during thirty-seven years appears in short supply.”

In addition to members of the faculty,

The Spectator

reached to student leaders for comment.

“Obviously, dialogue on campus is central to a vibrant intellectual community, but we do acknowledge that individuals may spew hate speech under the guise of free speech,” said Nadav Konforty ’20 and Julian Perricone ’20, who are Student Assembly President and Vice President, respectively. “[H]ere at Hamilton, we do not tolerate hate speech or attacks on members of our community,” they added.

Both the President and Vice President appear to share the view that potentially hateful and oppressive speech should not be tolerated on the Hamilton campus.

“[W]e believe that there is no intellectual or academic value to the kind of hate speech that, in President Wippman’s words, ‘denigrate[s] members of vulnerable groups or otherwise offend[s] values important to our community,’” said Konforty and Perricone.

“There is no reason to bring individuals whose ideas undermine or reject the basic humanity and existence of groups in our community.”

Along with Student Assembly leadership,

The Spectator

reached out to members of the College Democrats and Republicans in order to account for partisan views on free speech issues.

“I believe it does the conversation a disservice to say that one’s position on free speech implies that they would be okay letting the most hateful white supremacist come to campus, or that someone in favor of modest protections against hate speech is simply on a slippery slope to the Orwellian thought police,” said Ian Baize ’18, President of the College Democrats.

“There are also certain speakers that don’t have a place on campus. Most notably, there are certain speakers, particularly, on the right, who have a tendency to come to college campuses knowing that there’s going to be a fight, and seeking to score points with their own constituency by humiliating and bullying students in the audience at their events.”

“I’ve always found people who use “free speech” as a conversation ender, to mean that any restrictions on speech are inherently un-American to be a large part of the problem,” Baize added.

In particular, Baize specifically addressed President Wippman’s letter, explaining, “I think President Wippman has more strongly demonstrated his position on the subject and gotten personally involved in trying to foster more conversation on campus about it. I believe individual positions on the subject have gotten more polarized, however, simply due to the fact that we’re talking about speech,” said Baize. “[Wippman’s] position as president is to outline what our core values are and suggest avenues for action consistent with those,” said Baize.

“It’s not the administration’s place to be saying who can and cannot speak, it’s first the job of event organizers to really be conscious of who they’re bringing to campus and what they’re likely to say, then on students to figure out how best to respond to these events.”

Contrarily to Baize, Richard Soler, President of the College Republicans, expressed support for unlimited free speech on campus, even for those who may express views that could be considered hate speech.

“[O]nce students graduate and leave college for the real world, they will be immersed in a society revolving around free speech. Therefore, because college is supposed to prepare students for the real world, free speech on campus is very important,” said Soler,

He indicated that he sees free speech on a college campus, even if it is potentially hate speech, as a key element to a liberal arts generation and well-developed understanding on all perspectives.

“The main point of liberal arts is to expose students to all sides of an argument so that they learn to listen to all viewpoints, learn to think and learn to generate well-crafted arguments,” said Soler.

He also expressed agreement with much of President Wippman’s article, citing both the importance of diverse opinions, and the ability to condemn hate speech in a peaceful way.

“The campus should be made well-aware of when these speakers are coming to campus so that they may not only attend events, but also so that they may peacefully protest if they wish, as President Wippman said.”