As college campuses "disinvite" speakers deemed politically incorrect by some tender students, the University of Chicago last week issued a ringing endorsement of free speech.
UoC's Committee on Freedom of Expression was appointed in July 2014 "in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse."
Here are key excerpts from the Committee's Report.
"Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
"The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
"In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission. "
In the wake of the despicable terror attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, the UoC statement rings especially true.
A look at today's magazines, newspapers and the graphics on television and consumer products raises the question of whether or not designers know their intended audience.
PR and marketing departments are in the hot seat, as forecasts show that growth in advertising spend stalled in 2023 in the wake of cost-of-living increases and continued economic uncertainty.
WPP has forged what it calls a “first-of-a-kind global agency partnership” with China’s TikTok, a short-form mobile video platform.
Widespread disinformation may derail Biden/Harris agenda, according to a coalition of advocacy groups, who see the need for government-wide strategy to repair broken information ecosystem. (1 reader comment)
There's a media appetite for positive stories right now, anything to counterbalance the steady stream of bad news from the deadly spread of COVID-19. (1 reader comment)
Have a comment? Send it to 
No comments have been submitted for this story yet.