Where do idealogues die when free speech lives?

There is a specter haunting Princeton’s campus — the specter of free speech. It’s a perennial topic that inserts itself into most social, cultural, and political events on campus, and one that’s been exhaustively reiterated as a core value of this University. Its loudest proponents often present it as a fully apolitical idea: a set of sacred rules all parties should uphold in all circumstances, regardless of ideological differences. While conservatives often present “absolute free speech” as an apolitical neutral, its defense is often ideologically charged. The posing of free speech as a champion against “leftist dogmatism” not only detracts from the importance of truly effective free speech, but also rests on a fundamental contradiction: It relies on the perpetual existence of the leftist dogmatism it so despises.

When conservatives prime free speech to be understood as a sacred neutral, they disregard the truth that the ideal of free speech in itself — and the best way in which it should be pursued — is inherently dogmatic. Decrying the opponents of one interpretation of ideal free speech confines its believers to a form of blind, intellectual laziness. Instead of offering a defense of their interpretation of free speech, they can instead conveniently disregard their critics as opponents of a fundamental right. To effectively foster free speech in our campus community, we must foster a culture of dialogue that subjects the definition of free speech to intense ideological examination.

“Grievance identitarianism —” says McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George in a recent article with the New York Times, “be it of the left or the right — impedes the very thing a student is attending university to do: namely, think and learn. It turns a person into a tribalist, someone who, rather than thinking for oneself, outsources one’s thinking to the group.” Professor George’s argument serves as the foundation of the conservative explanation of progressivist tendencies.

What does having a campus that accepts true, unfettered, and complete “free speech” look like? Is there a point at which this will ever be achieved, dogmatists nowhere to be found, replaced instead by a body of utterly free-thinking individuals? If this hypothetical reality seems unrealistic, it’s because it is. No speech is free without the presence of ideologues — there is no marketplace of ideas without individuals who are committed to their ideas to begin with.

According to Oxford Professor of Political Theory Teresa M. Bejan, opposing interpretations of free speech date back to the times of ancient Greece: “isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom,” She writes. “When student protesters claim that they are silencing certain voices … in the name of free speech itself, it may be tempting to dismiss them as insincere, or at best confused … [But] most of these students do not see themselves as standing against free speech at all … this is a claim to isegoria, and once one recognizes it as such, much else becomes clear — including the contrasting appeal to parrhesia by their opponents.” Bejan poses to us a stark reminder that free speech has never had a singular interpretation. The intellectual tradition of free speech has always been shaped by those whose values give them influence.

More progressive interpretations of “free speech,” then, often come from an understanding that freedom should be grounded first and foremost in egalitarianism. In effect, speech cannot be heard, discussed, and debated freely in a forum of dialogue inherently laden with inequalities — my colleague Eleanor Clemans-Cope discusses this in her recent article. On the other hand, more conservative interpretations may view it as a full allowance for speech to occur without any penalty or limitations. The two interpretations build upon the discourse on free speech — and yet, the latter has often been pushed as the ultimate truth, deeming all of its dissenters a dogmatist.

The tendency for “ideologues of the left” to be viewed as incapable of questioning or reevaluating one’s beliefs — and therefore unable to effectively engage with the fundamental questions of truth and freedom — detracts from meaningful engagements across ideological divides. From the right’s vantage point, why consider the merits of a dogmatist, tribalist, or ideologue’s argument, if all of their ideas are founded on groupthink, anti-intellectualism, and a disregard for basic freedoms? Free speech has devolved into a mere grievance of the right, a justification to disregard the other side’s ideas.

Of course, for conversations about the limits of free speech to even occur, we must engage in good faith conversations to bring two disparate definitions together to protect and enforce that freedom to begin with. Just because free speech can be subjectively construed does not mean we should consider the policies that enable it in fully relative terms. When the creation of ground rules to protect speech become ideological, it turns free speech discourse into a convenient piece of rhetoric rather than an honest commitment to the cause. It is much easier to argue for ideas deemed apolitical, universal, and nonpartisan when you perceive your opponent as a threat to that universal truth.

None of us have, or should, claim to know the truth about everything. But I believe that to have convictions — even when they are grounded in a world we never will fully understand — is a deeply valuable thing. In my year or so of involvement in Princeton’s various activist spaces, I’ve experienced a kind of ideological questioning unparalleled in any other campus space I’ve been a part of. Our convictions make us who we are and push us to engage meaningfully with the world around us — why should conversations on free speech be excluded from that rigor?

Siyeon Lee is a sophomore from Seoul, South Korea intending to major in History. She is an assistant Opinion editor at the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at siyeonlee[at]princeton.edu or @siyeonish on Instagram.