MFSA Statement on the Suspension of 'Written Revolution'

December 22, 2024

There has been recent controversy at MIT around the October 2024 issue of the MIT student publication Written Revolution. This issue contained an article titled “On Pacifism,” which criticized the use of peaceful tactics for effecting political change, particularly as to the current conflict in Gaza. The passage that has drawn the most attention says, “One year into a horrific genocide, it is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc, or else, as we’ve seen, business will indeed go on as usual.” It also says that “to the extent that our Coalition can ex­act a cost at MIT, we can claim that we are exacting a cost to the state.” It includes embedded images of posters associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.

 

As has been reported in multiple outlets, MIT’s Dean of Student Life directed Written Revolution, a recognized MIT student organization, to cease distributing the October issue on campus and to cease “distributing it elsewhere using the MIT name or that of any MIT-recognized organization.” MIT said that “On Pacifism” made “several troubling statements that could be interpreted as a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT” and “numerous community members … expressed concern for their safety.”

 

We don’t doubt that “On Pacifism” offended and alarmed many who read it, and that they viewed it as a call for physical violence. Yet banning distribution of the publication on campus brings MIT inescapably into conflict with its free expression commitments, as enshrined in the Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom, whose adoption MFSA urged and applauded. We join a number of other observers who have questioned the magazine’s suppression. These include the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and MIT Professors Alex Byrne and Brad Skow, who detailed their concerns in an article in the MIT Faculty Newsletter. We urge readers to review the critiques from FIRE and the professors, whose conclusions we share.

 

MIT’s Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom says, “With a tradition of celebrating provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, MIT unequivocally endorses the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom.” The same statement also says, “We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious.” Finally, when it says that “MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment,” MIT makes clear the strong influence of the First Amendment and its standard interpretation in guiding its expressive policies.

 

To justify suppression under First Amendment standards, Written Revolution’s content would need to cross the threshold to be either unlawful incitement or a true threat of physical violence. The article “On Pacifism” crosses neither threshold. The Supreme Court defines unlawful incitement as speech that (emphasis added) “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” It is difficult to see how any publication that is distributed to readers over time could incite imminent lawless action. Likewise, the Supreme Court defines true threats as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” While we understand the alarm felt by many over the essay, general endorsement of disorder in a publication such as this one – or even general endorsement of violence – does not satisfy this standard. Although MIT and many others have interpreted “wreaking havoc” to mean advocating physical violence, others could just as easily view it as a call for aggressive, but non-violent, civil disobedience.

 

We understand that as a private institution MIT is not bound by the First Amendment. The “Free Expression at MIT” website tells us that “Not all speech that is protected under the First Amendment is allowed at MIT.” While noting that “[n]onetheless, MIT strongly adheres to the principles of freedom of expression and champions academic freedom,” the website goes on to say that “MIT has the right to establish internal policies and guidelines that align with its mission and values—even when they have the effect of limiting some forms of expression.” The question is whether MIT has indeed established policies that would ban student publications from publishing essays such as “On Pacifism.” We cannot find any such policy.

 

MIT has established reasonable, detailed restrictions on the time, place, and manner of public expression “so as not to disrupt the essential activities of the Institute,” as MIT’s free expression statement notes. When consistently applied and appropriately tailored, such restrictions pose no challenge to free expression. If MIT wishes to depart meaningfully from First Amendment standards in order to restrict certain expression, however, it must define these restrictions in detail, and provide content-neutral justifications for them. Currently, students reviewing MIT’s stated promises of free expression reasonably believe those principles protect the right to distribute a publication like Written Revolution on campus even if other members of the community find its content offensive or alarming. As far as we are aware, MIT has not cited any pre-existing policies or rules under which the censorship of Written Revolution can be justified.

 

MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom and Campus Expression (CAFCE) suggests one potential such justification in its response to the controversy. They state in their response: “CAFCE believes that it is not permissible for an MIT-recognized student organization to publish imagery linked to groups currently designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department in an MIT-affiliated publication in the context of advocacy.” MIT, as a private university, would be free to make such a change to its policies, but no such policy statement has ever existed that would justify MIT’s action here. If MIT wishes to make a rule banning such images, which enjoy strong First Amendment protections even “in the context of advocacy,” it needs to make this rule explicit in its policies, explain its compatibility with MIT’s other promises of free expression, and enforce it uniformly in a content neutral fashion. MFSA cautions MIT against departing from First Amendment standards in its speech policies without great care and specific guidelines for what is banned. Without clear guidelines, it risks allowing a degree of subjectivity in its deliberations that will inevitably result in double standards of enforcement and legitimate allegations of disparate and discriminatory treatment.

 

MIT has a duty to protect its community members from all acts of harassment, threats, and actual physical violence. In addition to existing civil law, MIT has policies and rules prohibiting these actions. Too often, MIT has been neither diligent nor consistent in enforcing its written policies, nor has it been swift, transparent, and proportionate in imposing discipline for violations. Members of the MIT community that have not seen MIT respond unambiguously to violations of its rules are naturally concerned about calls to “begin wreaking havoc.” Censoring discussions of potential civil disobedience that would violate MIT’s rules, however, is no substitute for punishing actual, serious rule breaking.

 

Written Revolution’s content is clearly protected under MIT’s free expression promises. MIT undermines its efforts to encourage a peaceful and welcoming campus environment if those efforts come at the cost of its students’ right to free expression. MIT has said it welcomes frank and open discussion, even of unpopular views. It should. The reaction to “On Pacificism” should be articles arguing in favor of pacifism and against disruptive civil disobedience, not the use of official power in place of intellectual argument. MIT should remove the sanctions placed on Written Revolution and use this controversy as an opportunity to strengthen its commitment to both campus safety and free expression.

Permalink.