MFSA proposes five highest priority recommendations that are essential for putting the MIT’s Statement on Freedom of Expression into practice. These recommendations complement the AHWG recommendations and should be implemented with a higher priority than our other recommendations.
In recent years, university leaders have faced mounting pressure to take public stands on political or cultural issues, and the desire of university leaders to do so can be sympathetic. The events of recent months, however, have made painfully clear the high cost this can have for institutions, and the unwinnable positions leaders find themselves in wading into fiercely contested issues. We don’t think it is a coincidence that in today’s increasingly polarized climate more institutions have begun following The University of Chicago’s lead in maintaining a neutral institutional position that works better in the long term in fostering the fullest exchange of views on campus. In addition to protecting the Institute’s reputation, this will also save valuable administration time and energy from being diverted from MIT’s core functions.
A sentence in the AHWG Report says:
Resources and support, similar to what the Institute has made available to combat harassment, also should be available to empower responses to hateful speech.
This comes at the end of a paragraph that starts:
We commend the efforts of MIT resources including the Division of Student Life, the Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response Office, and the Institute Community and Equity Office, to address cases of harmful but protected speech.
Thus, it seems there are three offices already that are available to empower responses to hateful speech. What offices or institutions are available to address cases of suppression of protected speech?
It is important that members of the MIT community who experience suppression of their speech, or retaliation for speech, have a place to go to submit their concerns, and have administrators and faculty who can help them manage the situation. A dedicated institution is also vital for organizing a range of necessary activities.
This institution can take one of several forms. It could, for instance, be modeled after the MIT offices and divisions cited previously, but with a particular focus on protecting free speech. An alternative structure would be to elevate CAFCE to the status of Standing Committee of the Faculty, or to create a new Standing Committee of the Faculty in a similar mold once CAFCE fulfills its mandate. The latter approach may prove beneficial in that it would ensure faculty are central to discussions and debates on free expression, in keeping with their traditional role as stewards of free expression and academic freedom.
Whatever form the office or body takes, it can have responsibilities including the following:
If finding funds for this institution is a problem, we suggest that the Administration ask for donations from alumni. If our own experience is any indicator, there is no shortage of MIT alumni who care deeply about free expression at the Institute, who may find much appeal in the prospect of being able to support such an office or committee. In addressing this need, MIT has a chance to be the leader among its peers.
It is important that all students who participate in MIT’s campus and culture learn about what is permitted and prohibited speech, and about the culture of free expression at MIT. A presentation on MIT’s policies should include, at a minimum:
This session should cover a variety of common scenarios that cause difficulty, such as responding to controversial speakers, managing offensive speech, and speaking on controversial topics on and off campus. Moving beyond the policies, the session should also offer a brief introduction to the history and arguments for free speech, and why it is so important in MIT’s culture. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has a series of free-to-use modules, videos, and other resources that can be used directly or for inspiration in designing this session.
Beyond this individual session, we would also encourage MIT to schedule and support programming throughout the academic year that emphasizes the virtues of free expression and facilitates productive discourse. MIT’s ongoing Dialogues Across Difference series and the work of MIT’s Civil Discourse Project offer models for such programs.
Appreciation of the benefits of free expression has deteriorated throughout the university, and it is influenced by and affects all players, including faculty, students, and administrative staff. The faculty have begun correcting their involvement, as evidenced by their work on the AHWG and the CAFCE, among other actions. Some of our other recommendations and recent activities focus on students – including such activities as sponsored debates and required education.
On the other hand, the administration has not been the focus of most actions thus far. Yet MIT has a large number of staff – over 8,500 individuals, of which around 4,000 are in management or administration. The proliferation of non-academic administrators at MIT mirrors larger trends in higher education, with profound implications for free expression. Administrative staff have a far larger role in shaping the student experience than they did in decades previously, and have also assumed many of the traditional campus roles that were once the domain of the faculty. Their professional training often does not give them a strong foundation on free expression and academic freedom issues; worse, some professional disciplines actively devalue the importance of free expression in higher education. Many members of the administrative staff do not have a background in STEM education, are not knowledgeable about the scientific method, and are not familiar with MIT’s culture.
Thus it is important that some deliberate effort is made on the part of MIT to ensure that administrative staff are educated on MIT’s free speech policies and the importance of such policies in a healthy campus culture. We believe that this can include much of the same content as would be provided to students.
Background: MIT’s Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response Office (IDHR), currently accepts anonymous complaints about concerns as vague as campus climate which we believe, if not curtailed, can lead to an atmosphere of campus surveillance inhibiting protected free expression.
Both IDHR and the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) utilize incident reporting software provided by the Maxient national database system, which can lead to the establishment of permanent records unknown to students. These can be subject to leaks, hacking, or unauthorized transmission. MIT must obviously maintain databases of student records. However, the current system runs the risk of creating false or malicious records of students’ behavior without their knowledge based purely on a complainant’s aversion to another’s free expression, which can have later disciplinary or employment consequences.
Specifically, we think the following reforms must be made:
Secret record systems contribute to a culture of fear in expressing unpopular viewpoints, because individuals are unaware of when their words are recorded and how they might be used in the future. A culture of free speech must include a general respect for openness in communication without undue fear of retribution for spoken statements.