The Ivy League faces a reckoning over free speech

A congressional inquiry into the spread of antisemitism on U.S. campuses has prompted fresh debate over how free speech is defined and enforced at the country’s most prestigious universities.

The Presidents of Harvard University, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania were hauled into Congress this week to “answer to and atone for” the rise of antisemitism on their campuses since Hamas’s attack on Israel two months ago.

Of over four hours of grilling, however, mainly by Republicans, only one line of questioning will be remembered. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, asked all three whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” constituted a violation of their respective university’s policies on bullying and harassment. All responded hesitantly, with answers ranging from “it depends on the context” to “if it becomes conduct”.

The responses provoked outrage online, with numerous high-profile individuals, including Harvard alum and billionaire Bill Ackerman, calling for all three “to resign in disgrace”.

For those working within the corridors of America’s Ivy League, however, the exchange has spawned more considered reflection about the future of campus speech codes.

“As a professor who favors free speech on campus, I can sympathize with the “nuanced” answers given by [University] presidents yesterday”, wrote Jonathan Haidt, a Professor of Psychology and UPenn alum, on social media site X on Wednesday.

“What offends me is that since 2015, universities have been so quick to punish “microaggressions,” including statements intended to be kind, if even one person from a favored group took offense.”

Steven Pinker, a Psychology Professor at Harvard and prominent free speech advocate, renewed calls for “a clear and coherent free speech policy” and other measures to restore confidence in universities. “The wrong way for the elite universities to dig themselves out their reputational hole [would be to] restrict speech even more”, he added.

UPenn President Elizabeth McGill, who testified on Tuesday, may disagree. In a video posted online, McGill appeared to apologise for her apparent equivocation in Congress, citing the structure of the institution’s official code of conduct on hate speech. “For decades, under multiple Penn presidents and consistent with most universities, Penn’s policies have been guided by the Constitution and the law”.

The University “condemns hate speech” but “the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action”, according to official guidance, published online. Now, she added, the university “must initiate a serious and careful look at our policies.” 

McGill’s comments imply a forthcoming change to the status quo – though no details have been made public as to what those changes might be.

A small but growing movement has emerged among American academics against what former Harvard President Lawrence Summers earlier this year called “very serious issues of viewpoint diversity” and “pressures for conformity” at Harvard and other elite universities.

In April, Summers, along with Pinker and other distinguished academics, formed a Council on Academic Freedom committed, in its words, to “promoting free enquiry, intellectual diversity and civil discourse” on campus by supporting academics deemed to be at threat of censure by university administrators or student groups.

Speaking to CNN after this week’s hearings, Summers, who formerly advised Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, said that campus antisemitism “cannot be separated from the broader issues of political diversity, the broader issues of identity politics”.

“It’s going to be very important to find a new synthesis as we work our way through this”, he added.