To the Editor:
Re “Harvard’s Anti-Woke Era Is Stifling,” by Alex Bronzini-Vender (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 5):
Long before President Trump’s second term, there was a conflict about the limits of free speech. And it was often the people further to the left who were considered to be intolerant of speech they didn’t like, while those on the right were perceived as advocating almost unlimited speech rights.
Perhaps, as awful as things are in the short term, it is good that the left now sees what happens when the tables are turned. Perhaps, in the long term, the abominations of the Trump administration will result in a greater value being placed on free speech by those on both sides of the political spectrum.
In order to guard one’s own freedom of speech, one needs to become tolerant of speech one finds offensive. That’s part of the bargain.
Joel Brickner Warren, Mich.
To the Editor:
Alex Bronzini-Vender, a student at Harvard, claims that his university is enforcing an ideological orthodoxy. What he is really describing is a loyalty oath. His university, acting effectively as a political party, is asking students to swear allegiance to selective interests by making a contract.
My alma mater, the University of Chicago, is well known for implementing what it calls the “Chicago Principles” concerning free speech and academic freedom. While it does include some penalties if students disrupt normal campus operations or engage in property destruction, it doesn’t go to the lengths that Harvard does.
Harvard is responding to special-interest lobbying, not constitutional law. Students must understand, however, that universities are corporations, with their own bylaws, rules and regulations, and that they preside over their own sovereign legal territory.
Fortunately, there are nearly 6,000 colleges and universities in the United States alone — Harvard is just one of them. Choosing a college is where free speech and association begin.
Matt Andersson Oak Brook, Ill.
To the Editor:
Alex Bronzini-Vender is correct when he writes that colleges should educate students in the habits of mind that permit meaningful disagreement, not merely select for those who already possess the ability. But how to do it?
For nearly 15 years, I have worked in unconventional institutions of higher education that not only encourage but also require students to work through conflict. At both Deep Springs College and Tidelines Institute, where I am co-executive director, the curriculums follow Mr. Bronzini-Vender’s prescription by offering students a hefty dose of the humanities, helping students to think beyond the boundaries of their own preconceptions.
More novel is our integration of student self-governance into institutional decision-making. Among other things, self-governance asks students to enforce norms of conduct, manage a budget and assist staff members with hiring faculty members and admitting students. Through such tasks, students must simultaneously wrestle with the fundamental questions of justice, navigate substantive disagreement and make decisions with real stakes for the school itself.
I have yet to see an educational practice that better prepares students for the rigors of engaged citizenship in a pluralistic democracy.
Laura Marcus Gustavus, Alaska
To the Editor:
As a sophomore at Stanford, I can confirm Alex Bronzini-Vender’s observations about freedom of expression at elite universities. Censorship has indeed outlived D.E.I. Yet I believe that this presents an opportunity for our generation to learn a valuable lesson about free speech and ultimately emerge as its greatest defenders.
As members of Generation Z, Mr. Bronzini-Vender and I grew up at a time when there were things you could not say for fear of being ostracized or ending up in the principal’s office. In our teenage years, suppression of speech came from progressives under the auspices of D.E.I. Now, as Mr. Bronzini-Vender illustrates, the left’s culture of intolerance has been co-opted by the right.
The continuation of censorship by its conservative critics presents what D.E.I. practitioners call a teachable moment — an opportunity for our generation to learn that suppressing speech is untenable, because even if you succeed for a while at silencing your political opponents, the same approach may someday be used against you.
Raised in the repressive atmosphere of the 2010s and coming of age in the 2020s, our generation must be the one that comes to recognize the value of free expression and defends it unconditionally.
Ben Botvinick Philadelphia
Our Phone Choices: Color or Not, Smart or Dumb
To the Editor:
Re “I Killed Color on My Phone. The Result Shocked Me,” by Julia Angwin (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 6):
Ms. Angwin’s relief at switching her phone to black and white is real — but as a 19-year-old with a grayscale phone for six years, I know it doesn’t last. I see black-and-white filters as a placebo, offering only temporary relief.
I made the change for the same reasons Ms. Angwin cites: awareness of my phone’s dangers. I’ve lost thousands of hours of learning and experience to digital use, and I worry that 10-person friend groups glued to their phones have become a defining image of my generation.
Even with filters, some days I still spend four hours on my phone. While I agree that people should escape the digital world, more effective approaches exist. Cutting down on social media is a good start. It’s one way I use my phone as a resource rather than letting it use me.
The most meaningful choice isn’t the color of my phone — it’s deciding to focus on the people and moments around me.
Jacob Goroff Chicago
To the Editor:
More stories about the life changes caused by smartphones:
Neighbors used to exchange a few pleasantries riding down the elevator. Now each has his nose in his phone, giving barely a nod to the next fellow.
Before a concert or a lecture, old folks in the audience used to chat. Now, they are poking at their phones.
People used to criticize old married couples as having nothing to say to each other in restaurants. Now they are the only ones talking to each other! On and on …
Shirley Smithberg New York
To the Editor:
There is a reason I have a dumb flip phone. It makes telephone calls and nothing else. I don’t want a telephone that is smarter than I am.
While I have had a computer available to me since the mid-1970s, I know that real life is a lot more fun.
Bill Ruck San Francisco
Falling Behind China on Energy
To the Editor:
Re “Chinese Batteries Will Soon Run the World,” by Dan Wang (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 21):
By doubling down on fossil fuel production, President Trump is letting China become the world leader in electricity generation and storage, the energy of the future.
Look beyond Mr. Trump’s “America first” bluster. What we have is a recipe for American decline.
Jeremy Kaplan Brooklyn
The post Why Campuses Are Still Failing at Free Speech appeared first on New York Times.
