The Place of Controversy on the Campus

Abstract

IT IS generally accepted that college students should learn to think for themselves, that they should take nothing for granted, that they should weigh alternatives and arrive at their own truths from indoctrination. This ideal implies a campus community which not only permits but invites the expression of widely divergent views upon which a student can exercise his critical judgment. When such an intellectual environment is encouraged, controversial issues and unpopular speakers are bound to appear. This encouragement should be inspired for the values that result from the expression of and not merely to create controversy for the sake of controversy. Since our academic communities value their independence and since freedom of learning and teaching are widely accepted as being desirable for both students and teachers, one might assume that colleges would eliminate restrictive policies and would discourage pressures from outside sources. Unfortunately, this is not always true. When controversy hits head on in the form of a speaker with an uncommon message, a lack of clear purpose and policy often leads to panic and ill-considered action. But when we attempt to formulate standards for a policy on controversy, we too often use either the rhetoric of the extreme libertarian or that of the overly cautious restrictionist. Neither is adequate. The former excludes any qualitative standards; it reiterates the free market place of ideas argument which assumes that truth will automatically emerge if all sides are heard. The latter sells the student short and assumes that his impressionable mind needs shelter from any point of view not already widely accepted. The extreme libertarian view does not recognize the need to distinguish among issues on the basis of their relevancy to the intellectual goals of the college. The restrictionist view is even more unacceptable because it combines fear with a defense of the status quo and denies the values of speech and assembly without which there can be no understanding of the crucial issues of the day. The central place which controversy should occupy on any campus derives from the ancient purposes of higher education-teaching and intellectual inquiry. The farther we stray from these central purposes,