Table of Contents
Dartmouth Mystery Deepens
I recently wrote about the 鈥Dartmouth Free Speech Mystery,鈥 in which Dartmouth has apparently removed its from its website but has not indicated whether the policy is simply being moved, as its site , or has been formally retracted.
An only deepens the mystery. Apparently, President Wright is making public statements supporting the Ford Foundation鈥檚 鈥溾 initiatives, which is a $2.5 million academic freedom initiative designed to 鈥渉elp colleges and universities create a campus environment where sensitive subjects can be discussed in a spirit of open scholarly inquiry, intellectual rigor and with respect for different viewpoints.鈥
At the end of the Dartmouth article, Wright makes the following statements regarding his May 10, 2001, that is the heart of the Dartmouth speech code:
Wright, however, stands by the assertions in the letter, and did not relate them to his support of the Ford Foundation's new program. 鈥淚 stand by the statements that this is a community where we value each member鈥ree speech does not mean that you鈥檙e free from criticism for what it is that you said,鈥 Wright maintained in an interview with The Dartmouth. 鈥淚'm not aware of anyone [here] that thinks they can鈥檛 speak freely.鈥
It is difficult to make sense of this statement. Wright鈥檚 May 10, 2001, letter does not simply state that the university values each member, nor does it state that 鈥渇ree speech does not mean you鈥檙e free from criticism.鈥 Instead, it explicitly states:
After the Trustee announcement, I met with the presidents of the CFS organizations and told them that the administration would work with their organizations in meeting these new challenges. In return, we expected each of them to contribute to the community, to be supportive of our educational mission and our community values. Specifically, I said that I expected them to take action to address allegations of conduct that was demeaning to women and others, that was racist, or that was homophobic. As a community committed to fairness, respect, and openness, we have no patience with or tolerance for bigotry or demeaning behavior. I affirm here, with deep personal conviction, that Dartmouth is and will be an actively anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-homophobic institution and community.
...
In a community such as ours, one that depends so much upon mutual trust and respect, it is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their 鈥渞ight鈥 to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account.
No one can read this letter and believe that they have the right to 鈥渟peak freely鈥 on matters of race, gender, and sexuality. According to this letter, the right to speak on those subjects is limited by others鈥 鈥渇eeling鈥 or 鈥渃onsiderations鈥 and cannot be 鈥渄emeaning,鈥 sexist, racist, or homophobic as those terms are subjectively defined by the administration. If such a policy were enacted in a public university, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Yet, if you read Wright鈥檚 quote carefully, it could be evidence that he is climbing down from the actual speech restrictions in the letter. He says: 鈥淚 stand by the statements that this is a community where we value each member.鈥 He is not quoted as standing by the entire letter. So, the question remains鈥攚hat is the status of the missing speech code?
Recent Articles
麻豆传媒IOS鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Brendan Carr鈥檚 Bizarro World FCC

Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump鈥檚 executive orders 鈥 First Amendment News 468聽

Detaining 脰zt眉rk over an op-ed is unlawful and un-American
