Why the right to speak freely is more than just words
Silence is golden. But being silenced is far from it.
Two days after the 2016 presidential election, an event was held as an open forum for the public. Following five faculty member panelists, staff and students participated in open discussions in the spirit of free speech. No student or university employees were obligated to attend or remain at the event. David Parry, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of the department of communication studies, who was also one of the panelists, made comments about the election outcome. His comments were part of a larger conversation and event planned two weeks before election night itself.
On Feb. 8, CampusReform, an online website that claim to “exposes bias and abuse on the nation’s college campuses,” released a Youtube video with some of Parry’s comments. CampusReform falsely reported that the conversation was held in a classroom setting, calling it a “lecture.” On Feb. 18, Fox News aired a short nationally broadcast segment on Watters’ World. The segment was filmed on our campus, featured interviews with students, and attempted to interview Parry.
The segment, in addition to incorrectly reporting Parry’s comments as taking place in a classroom, inaccurately reported Parry’s role within the university, stating that he was “in charge of teaching future journalists.” This statement is false. As the official student journalists and editors for the university’s newspaper, the majority of students on The Hawk staff have not been taught by Parry. Saint Joseph’s University offers a journalism track within the English department, which English and journalism professors teach. As a communications studies professor, Parry is not in charge of teaching any journalism courses.
To clarify: the forum itself was open to the public as a way for students and faculty to openly speak their minds. It was not a classroom. The forum in question took place in Doyle Banquet Hall South on the second floor of Campion Student Center. However, the false reporting of Parry’s comments and allegations that they were made in a “classroom”, does raise the question of how far academic freedom exists within a class. Can a professor or person in a teaching role feel protected by the freedom of speech guarantee in the First Amendment? How does a student react to a professor when they find themselves in a classroom setting, engaged by both the heated opinions of their professor and classmates?
In the state of Pennsylvania, there must be a “two-party consent” when it comes to recording individuals. This means that it is illegal to record a conversation unless all parties of the conversation have agreed to be recorded. Consequently, those who recorded Parry did not abide by Pa. law. The two and a half minute recording, recorded secretly by unidentified individual(s)has resulted in a misrepresented, mis-reported, and misinformed firestorm.
Despite four other university faculty and student comments at the forum, only Parry’s were singled out and posted on the internet. We are not clear on the motivation of the individual(s) who made the recording and then posted it online. We know, though, that academic freedom and by association, our university’s mission of integrity and tolerance, hangs in the balance. The misreported media response to this incident undermines our university mission and foments conflict between and among professors, students, and alumni.
At the heart of this, is a power struggle.
Both professors and students have obligations and responsibilities in a classroom. Professors’ roles give them a significant amount of power and privilege, which, under no circumstances, should they abuse. Professors hold authority in classrooms because of their positions and this needs to be acknowledged. These, and other educators, who use their positions to make students feel inferior or preach their opinions, disrespect the job they have earned and the university mission that upholds respect and tolerance. Additionally, students who record comments of others in a classroom setting, violate others’ freedom of speech and obstruct educational environments, making them one of fear rather than growth.
This misconstrued media story has caused fear from both sides of the classroom. These power struggles hurt everyone, as people are discouraged from speaking their minds in even a respectful and open atmosphere. Now, discussions have ended before they even begin. There are no winners, only losers.
It is our mission as a university to provide comfortable environments that promote discussions, especially on contentious issues that arise in our country. While you should always be aware about how your comments may be perceived by others and avoid making others feel inferior, disagreement encourages open-mindedness and empathy towards those who may feel differently than us. Now that fear has caused many to hesitate to exercise the privilege of speaking openly and without fear of retribution, we as a university lose allies from both sides. If students and faculty withhold their opinions, it will be harder to find common ground and solace in those who could comfort us in times of hardship or fear.
Cary Anderson, Ed.D., vice president for Student Life and Associate Provost, clarified that St. Joe’s policy prohibits the following in regards to recording: “Making, distributing, or publishing a media recording of any person without that person’s consent and/or prior knowledge (e.g., audio, picture, video, Google Glass). We are not specific to the venue of the recording. Each incident is fact specific and would judged on the facts.” Parry and the university have come under scrutiny by some organizations. The consequences of this scrutiny is unfair to the reputation of the university itself as well as the integrity of academic freedom on our campus and universities everywhere.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) defines academic freedom as “the indispensable requisite for unfettered teaching and research in institutions of higher education.” The AAUP ties it to a “freedom in learning” and grounds its definition in rights. The two definitions and their explanations differentiate the connotations between classrooms and open forums; however, the former delves into university professors and their roles in a college community.
Don’t be disillusioned. Academic freedom was not established on the basis of any political bias but rather to encourage and protect a wide range of opinions. Professors now fear that they may be being recorded and misrepresented. University officials across the board, by extension, may now be less likely to practice their right to free speech protected under the First Amendment.
The acts of a few have the triggered a chain reaction. St. Joe’s reflects current society at large: a place where misconceptions, slander, and bias reign instead of the truth. Those who reported on the event, that did not attend, will never be given an accurate eyewitness account of Parry’s speech or the reactions of the audience. They cannot give appropriate context of the event itself, two days after an exhaustive election came to an end, on St. Joe’s campus. In an age of mass digital sharing and likes, this kind of inaccurate falsified media coverage, and the recording that started it, has challenged academic freedom itself and threatened everything we hold to be true.
This is a step backwards. Instead of encouraging our community to reach out to each other, to speak openly, yet respectfully about the world around, this has silenced some of our most of intelligent persons on our campus from all parts of St. Joe’s. We will not live in fear of being taken out of context. This is not the college we enrolled in.
The Hawk staff refuses to stand by while some are silenced.
-The Hawk Staff
