The Board of Trustees last week adopted a new Declaration on Freedom of Expression, which purports to simultaneously uphold free expression on campus while ensuring that such expression stays in line with Tufts' "community values." But the new policy is marked by hypocrisy, as it tries to accomplish the impossible task of promoting "the freedom of other community members to inquire and express themselves fully" while making sure that all community members "exercise freedom of expression and inquiry in ways that respect the human dignity of others."
In August 2007, University President Lawrence Bacow wrote, "While Tufts is a private institution and not technically bound by First Amendment guarantees, it is my intention to govern as President as if we were." In supporting the new policy, he is compromising this pledge.
The declaration succeeds in walking its rhetorical tightrope — extolling free discussion while allowing only for speech that is thoughtful — by employing very vague language. This vagueness could be taken as an indicator that its signers intend it to be used only sparingly. But there is equal opportunity for the murky language to be applied liberally and to neuter less politically correct opinions because they do not line up with Tufts' "community values."
According to the policy, something is "offensive" if it does not "respect the human dignity of others," inhibits community members from "reaching their full potential" or creates a community atmosphere that is not "conducive to learning." But the idea that something ought to be labeled patently "offensive" is as naïve as the idea that an undefined code of "values" can speak for an entire community: Both ignore the fact that what one person considers harmful might not even make another person blink.
Furthermore, the document does not even so much as hint at how things should be enforced — it simply highlights the need to "respond" and "hold accountable those who do not respect [Tufts' community] values." The ambiguous policy gives broad agency to its enforcers, and this is a dangerous thing.
The Daily appreciates the good intentions that led to the creation of this declaration — namely, making sure no student's feelings of safety or "humanity" are threatened. But we have to question how such a policy, which dangerously attempts to reconcile protecting the right to free speech with limits on its offensive aspects, will function in the event of an actual problem. It appears that this softly worded policy can do little more than muddle the already murky waters surrounding the issue of freedom of speech on Tufts campus.
