The New School In Exile

Political Dissent, Speech Acts and the New School Milieu:
An Open Letter to the New School

10.2.09

As many people at the New School are likely now aware, student protests at a Milano public forum on Homeland Security, where Tom Ridge was the featured guest, have sparked considerable controversy around issues of freedom of speech and political protest. This is a controversy deeply entwined with not only the history and legacy of the New School, but also with the current campus climate and administration of the school. Some of the questions that have emerged so far include:

~ Were students justified in protesting the appearance of Tom Ridge at the New School?
~ Were the specific tactics used to disrupt the Tom Ridge event appropriate?
~ What standards does the community use to judge what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" actions?
~ Are all forms of protest equally legitimate and protected?
~ What is the relationship between the protection of free speech on campus and the creation of a safe space for academic discussion and debate?
~ Should the university only invite individuals to speak whose values or politics we agree with?
~ What exactly are the core values and the mission of the New School today, and how do they relate to our historical legacy as an institution?
~ Does the university community have an affirmative obligation to condemn actions which pose a potential threat to free speech at the New School?
~ Can issues of political dissent be separated from the political critique being offered by those acts?

These are all very important questions which the university is now grappling with, but which I believe we as a community are not adequately discussing. With that being said, I believe the academic community at the New School has an obligation to engage with these issues in a constructive and timely manner—one which does justice to our political views and positions as individual members—as well as our philosophical obligation as the embodiment or living spirit that defines the New School. We must demonstrate the value of theory and practice in a unified manner in and out of the classroom.

In an attempt to do just that, I offer the following reflections to the New School community. First, by addressing the underlying political issues as I understand them and as I see them relating to the specific issue of Tom Ridge speaking at the New School. Second, by framing the issues of political dissent and free speech in both a very grounded New School context, as well as a larger philosophical context. And finally, by trying to suggest the interconnections between the first and seconds parts, and their immediate ramifications for our school.

The Political Question

This is perhaps the most contentious part of the debate currently going on at the New School, since it depends so much on the starting point of the observer, and is intimately linked with individual politics. But in order to better understand this, we need to outline the two primary tensions that have been drawn out in this situation, which for the sake of space I will simply call the institutional position and the critical position.

~The Institutional Position

The institutional position can be best summed up as the business as usual society represented by the two-party system and electoral politics. In this context, Tom Ridge is former Governor of Pennsylvania, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and now a private but still highly influential citizen and author. Depending on the political orientation of an individual within this framework, a person is likely to support or disagree with his actions and past policies. But regardless of the position of the individual, there is a general consensus that he has been, and perhaps continues to be, an important political figure in America worth hearing from.

So his coming to speak at the New School, particularly on issues of Homeland Security, makes sense. The fact that Ridge was already speaking on a book tour relevant to some policy interests of Milano; that he was in NY the day before to speak with John Stewart on the Daily Show; a supposed link with a new university scholarship named after Tom Ridge given by an influential Trustee at the New School; and the personal friendship between Bob Kerrey and Tom Ridge—all of these factors give the appearance of a perfect opportunity. With this in mind, the event was a good chance for students to engage with a former high-level government official in a relatively open setting that was bolstered by an ongoing relationship between members and interests of the New School.

~The Critical Position

The critical position takes a completely different starting point as its point of analysis, and therefore reaches very different conclusions. From this perspective, Tom Ridge is a politician who both as Governor or Pennsylvania and then Secretary of Homeland Security abused his power and influence to push a political agenda which has trampled civil liberties; promoted racial profiling of Arabs and other ethnic groups in the name of national security; intentionally ignored or subverted international human rights laws; framed radical environmental and animal rights activists as domestic eco-terrorists; manipulated security threat levels for political agendas; and advocated for an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. In his capacity as former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge should be held politically accountable for documented cases of intimidation, harassment or death of individuals due to actions of the Department of Homeland Security.

Seen in this light, Tom Ridge should be facing charges before a war crimes or similar human rights tribunal, and not walking free promoting his book and a new political agenda. The fact that he is not speaks to how conservative and corrupt this nation has truly become. Therefore his being invited to speak at the New School of all places is viewed as a deep insult to everything which this school is believed to stand for in its founding moment and subsequent history, and a slap in the face to those concerned about holding people responsible for their actions. How can we as an academic community avowedly dedicated to critiquing oppressive institutions and apparatuses of power welcome a person like this with a clear conscience? Why does his invitation not provoke widespread outrage?

So as we can see, not only the starting point, but the conclusions reached by these two positions are night and day apart, and signify a real and deep abyss within this school around questions of political orientation and contested notion of our past legacy. This is a political gap that cannot easily be bridged, as these two views are founded on certain basic assumptions about politics that cannot be reconciled.

Political Dissent and Free Speech

These opposing viewpoints are central to the political question at hand, as the starting point for discussion of what constitutes free speech or political speech acts must necessarily reflect the political assumptions underlying the discussion. Therefore any discussion about free speech and political dissent by students necessarily begins on uneven terrain, which I believe the current tenor and tone of conversations I have been privy to clearly shows. The fact that only university administrators have access to communication with the students and faculty is just one example of this asymmetrical power which can easily be manipulated and magnified in a crisis situation such as this.

Other examples of this unequal free speech basis were the powers wielded by President Kerrey as the moderator, unilaterally deciding which questions were or were not appropriate, as well as university officials in charge of planning events and arranging speakers such as Tom Ridge. In these situations, the limits of discourse are set ahead of time and the political boundaries are circumscribed before a debate even begins. The choice to only invite an institutional advocate for Homeland Security and not provide any alternative viewpoints demonstrates how this institutional power imbalance can mediate against dissenting voices and raises legitimate questions about the basic assumptions of free speech. Can we even talk about ensuring students' right to free speech on campus if administrators have already excluded certain voices before the conversation even begins? Has the New School considered inviting, for example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to speak on US militarism in Latin America or a member of the October 22 Coalition to talk about ongoing police brutality and racism of the NYPD?

Considering the above, is heckling or shouting down an individual you honestly believe to be a murderer and war criminal, even if society has not deemed them as such, a protected speech act? Can a case be made for defending the actions of an individual who believes they have a moral obligation to speak out against a perceived injustice, as well as claiming that society has an affirmative obligation to protect their right to express that moral outrage? If we agree such a right does exist, is there still a need to draw a distinction between a “legitimate” and “illegitimate” actions or expressions, especially if we favor an overarching notion of free expression? How we answer has important ramifications for us all.

If we choose to claim a qualified right to free speech, such as stating that anything which is felt to be “inappropriate” within a certain community context is not covered by free speech, then the question becomes who sets the limitations or the borders of what is deemed as appropriate, and equally important, who then polices those borders? This becomes particularly important when, for example, we look at the language of the Code of Conduct for the New School:

Disorderly conduct includes, but is not limited to, lewd, indecent or obscene behavior on university owned or controlled property or at university sponsored functions; conduct that is unreasonable in the time, place, or manner in which it occurs; and/or obstruction or disruption of university sponsored activities; or conduct which adversely affects the student’s suitability as a member of the university community or which is inconsistent with the mission of the university. (/www.newschool.edu/forms/ss_new_code_of_conduct.pdf)

The implicit assumption written into the Code of Conduct, although I do not believe this has ever been discussed or agreed to by the students or faculty, is that the university holds a qualified free speech position. Because of this, the problem in this context becomes one of defining what distinguishes conduct that is “unreasonable in the time, place, or manner in which it occurs” from legitimate expressions of free speech and political dissent? How do we know what is “inconsistent with the mission” of the university? Is this a decision which can simply be dictated by those in power, such as the New School administration or its security apparatus, or does the larger academic community also have control of how these definitions are interpreted and applied? This was clearly the crux of the debates immediately following the April 10 occupations concerning the questions of unilateral authorization of police force by President Kerrey and the need to consult a standing body of students and faculty in such a crisis. The internal University investigation into these matters remains an outstanding issue as their findings have yet to be made public, even though the committee authorized to investigate these matters has now finished their report and sent it to the Board of Trustees. So it is still an open question as to who exactly sets these limits, and what checks exist against an abuse of power?

If we look back at the rich history of political dissent and protest in the US and abroad, it is clear that the only way that real political change has come, particularly for oppressed or minority groups, was exactly through transgressing these limitations on what was construed as “unreasonable” in “time, place or manner” by the dominant order. And that was also why the basic Constitutional guarantees, as well as later expansions of rights to free speech and protest, were equally protected as civil and political rights and given a more-or-less blanket protection in public expressions, excepting only speech which might endanger public safety.

So were the actions of a handful of New School students at the Tom Ridge talk legitimate acts of political dissent protected by the rights of free expression, or did they transgress the boundaries of our qualified rights of free speech and the underlying mission of the university? On the second question, the school itself is unclear as to what its mission is, so using that as a basis for political criteria is a matter open to various interpretations. During the Middle States Commission on Higher Education's Re-Accreditation Review and Self Study, which took place in 2002-2003, the report acknowledges that the mission of the school is in essence fluid. In discussing this fluidity during the review process the following statement was created to help encapsulate the idea of our mission:

First and foremost, New School University is the quintessential New York institution, an urban space open to women and men, from all walks of life and all parts of the globe, who want to pursue learning in free and creative association unconstrained by conventional boundaries, for their own self- improvement, the advancement of their professions, and the improvement of the city and world in which they live. (www.newschool.edu/admin/middlestates/docs/missionChptr.pdf)

When one looks to the mission statement for guidance on this question of free speech and political dissent, it would seem we are at a loss for some criteria on which to weigh competing claims, other than suggesting that the criteria should be guided by an attention to the “free and creative association” of student who are “unconstrained by conventional boundaries.” Yet if we read a little further we are offered some clarity on the view of the university and its mission—the drafters include the following statement from the eminent American philosopher Richard Rorty to clarify the intent of our university:

…students badly need to find themselves in a place in which people are not ordered to a purpose, in which loose cannons are free to roll about. The only point of having real live professors around instead of just computer terminals, videotapes, and mimeoed lecture notes is that students need to have freedom enacted before their eyes by actual human beings. (www.newschool.edu/admin/middlestates/docs/missionChptr.pdf)

One could argue that such a statement offers a very encouraging interpretation favorable to the protests, one which firmly enshrines the value of robust political dissent grounded in a critical liberal education. So how do we balance the need for “free and creative association” in an institution where, as Rorty says, “loose cannons are free to roll about,” while also upholding our desire to support and expand the “self-improvement” and “advancement” of students—like at Milano—striving to make a better world?

It seems we need to be able to make an honest and critical evaluation of specific instances of student actions, and judge them on their merits, even while acknowledging we may not have a single or agreed upon basis for how to judge such actions in the context of free speech. This fluidity of not only terms but basis for evaluation makes this task even more critical, since a poor evaluation or sloppy thinking can have dire consequences for our collective rights and responsibilities as a community.

Interconnection and Ramifications

The basic outline of the event, from all of the versions I have received, goes something like this. After Dean Servon opened the event a member of the board introduced Tom Ridge, who then spoke for about 10 minutes. At this point President Kerrey made some remarks and then an attempt at a question. At some point during this there was one cell phone, and then apparently several more, which began to ring in the room, but which were not being answered. This continued for a bit, people were trying to figure out whose phones they were, at which point several students began to shout various things at Ridge (apparently including accusation of being a murderer, a fascist and various expletives). With heckling from the students continuing, President Kerrey tried to have someone ask a question from the crowd. Eventually the disruption started to calm down a bit, at which point a student critical of Ridge asked a political question about his sentencing people to executions in Pennsylvania. At this point President Kerrey decided to stop the event, and left shortly after. Although Kerrey left the room, Tom Ridge stayed and spoke with a group of students afterwards for an hour or so, thus ensuring interested students in attendance did have a chance to talk with Tom Ridge eventually.

Assuming the above description is fairly accurate, it seems that three central questions need to be considered. First, what is the political basis for evaluating the decision to invite Ridge, and how might it relate to the New School's mission and values. As noted earlier, the view of what is or is not “acceptable” student actions, as well as the stated actions of some of the students, seems to hinge on how the mission and legacy of the school are understood. Therefore the political claims of the students against Ridge certainly play a part in relation to our perceived mission. Are there situations where the politics of an individual are so in conflict with the mission of the school that the community feels such a person should not be welcomed at the school? For example, would we want to welcome a Holocaust denier to speak on campus given the historical role of the New School as a haven for Nazi victims? If we allow them to speak, would we object to heckling and possible disruptions by student protesters? So again the question must be asked, what basis does the school use to define what is or is not acceptable behavior on the part of students, faculty or staff in the context of political protest and free speech?

Secondly, we need to evaluate the actions undertaken by the students, and attempt to discern whether or not we believe they were acceptable forms of free speech expression and political dissent. If we feel they were not, on what basis do we find them unacceptable? This premise follows from the first point, but is also contingent on the answer. If we protect the right of protest, no matter how odious we may find them personally, then on what basis can we condemn the actions of those protesting Tom Ridge? If we do draw a boundary between what is and is not acceptable when it comes to political expressions, what part of their actions crossed this boundary, and how significant is the perceived transgression?

Finally, we need to consider the ability of the university as an institution to ensure an atmosphere conducive to political debate and criticism. Any appearance that we as an academic community are hostile to open and critical public debate at the New School must be seriously addressed, since without this fundamental guarantee questions of free speech and political dissent become a moot point. Did the disruptions at the Tom Ridge event infringe on this basic guarantee, or was it still maintained even in the face of vocal political speech acts?

On this point, it appears that there are two very different conclusions which have been drawn. First, we can say that, while there may have been a disruption of the free and open exchange at the height of the heckling, there was a return to a space for open discussion as witnessed in the hour long exchange between Tom Ridge and others after President Kerrey ended the event and left the space. Secondly, we also need to acknowledge that the unilateral decision to cancel the event by President Kerrey cannot be ignored, as this act itself served to stifle and close down a space for public discussion and debate. While President Kerrey may have rightly felt the student protesters would only ask politically pointed questions to Tom Ridge, this cannot be an acceptable basis for shutting down a public forum, and is as much a breach of the fundamental right to free debate as being stopped due to protests. To lose sight of this fact is to place sole responsibility for free speech on the protesters while ignoring those who held institutional power over the event and the discourse following it—a point the student protesters were right to point out in their defense. President Kerrey's role in this event must also be honestly examined.

~Legacy, Speech and Dissent

As stated earlier, the origin of the political critique of Ridge, while only briefly sketched above, could be developed more fully to do justice to the weight of evidence behind this case. As I do not have the time or space to go into an extended review and presentation of the numerous political claims made against Tom Ridge here, I will suffice to say that in my estimation and based on my own knowledge there is substantial merit to many of the claims, and as such will consider them valid.

However, I also understand that many coming from what has been outlined above as the institutional position would surely dispute many of the stronger claims made against ridge (ie. war criminal), therefore I also want to acknowledge that my views lean towards that of the critical position without invalidating either. Regardless of the merits of each individual claim, we can safely say there are valid political criticism which can be leveled both at Tom Ridge and the student protesters, and take these claims as the basis for our discussion.

For those who come from the institutional position, disagreement with Tom Ridge is fine, but the real question for them regards the “time, place and manner” question in the Code of Conduct. One New School student blogging after the event summed up this feeling when he wrote:

This isn’t a question of whether these people have a right to protest such events. But Ridge has a right to speak about his time as DHS chief...If you want to protest the events please do, but protest before it. Protest after. Protest with signs during so long as it is done quietly, but let debate take place. (www.idealismandcynicism.blogspot.com)

Milano Dean Lisa Servon, also blogging after the event, reflected a similar sentiment, albeit with a much more hostile attitude towards the students who disrupted her event:

The deplorable behavior exhibited by this small group flies in the face of the academic values we hold dear and that lie at the center of The New School’s identity. Shutting down a conversation, a legitimate debate is anathema to me. I remain deeply troubled by what happened on Thursday and am committed to working with my colleagues across the university to find ways to preserve the ability for all of us to engage in a free and open exchange of ideas. (www.newschool.edu/milano/servonblog.aspx?id=36530&blogid=2277)

These comments speak to the heart of the disagreement, at least as I see it. Compare Dean Servon's account with that of another student writing about the event, who offers a very different take on the issue and the framing of what is at stake politically:

...it has been claimed that the demonstration was a violation of the free speech rights of Ridge, Kerrey, and those seeking to participate in the event. This claim is inaccurate. The event was terminated by Bob Kerrey when a non-Milano student took advantage of the confusion and stepped up to the microphone. This student was granted the floor by a befuddled Kerrey, and respectfully posed a question which Tom Ridge began to answer. The student asked Tom Ridge if his decision to execute over 200 people as governor of Pennsylvania was a factor in his appointment to the Bush Administration. Polemical, surely, but a valid question nonetheless. As Ridge began to answer, Kerrey prevented the question from being answered and declared the event over...Kerrey strove to limit the discussion to certain parameters within which the discussion of Ridge's crimes and totalitarian vision for American "security" was disallowed. This was the free speech violation. The student reaction was a celebration of free speech. (www.newschoolinexile.com/News/article/sid=72.html)

The interpretation of what constitutes “free speech” and its violation is as far apart as one could imagine. For the institutionalists, the free speech violation occurred when the student protesters disrupted Ridge during the Q & A and forced Kerrey to end the event prematurely. For the critics, the violation was the denial of a space for critical discussion about the political actions of Tom Ridge, and the attempt by President Kerrey to keep those questions from being raised. This, of course, forces us to then ask, who was in fact censoring who? If these claims are equally valid, do they both constitute a free speech violation? It would seem that the crux of these claims depend on what we believe caused free speech to be threatened: the disruption of questions by student protesters during the Q&A or the power exercised by Kerrey to censor certain political questions and then unilaterally end the Q&A?

I am inclined to agree with the institutionalists that the shouting down of Tom Ridge, which effectively blocked the ability of any other student there to ask questions or engage Tom Ridge, is not helpful. While I understand the value of public disruptions of speakers, I also understand the importance of a free forum for discussion. So my first question would be, if people were opposed to Tom Ridge speaking at the school, why didn't they disrupt his actual speech before the Q&A, rather than waiting until after he had finished speaking to disrupt the event? This is important because once Ridge had finished speaking, the disruption effectively stopped fellow students from asking questions of Ridge, rather than challenging any particular comments which Ridge might have made. This would seem to bolster the claim that the ones who had their free speech violated were those students in the audience who wanted to have a discussion with Ridge but were prevented by the students.

However, this position can be argued against from the critical perspective if we consider that many students were in fact able to talk with Tom Ridge after President Kerrey had left the event, effectively substituting a shorter formal Q&A with a longer and more intimate personal discussion. Seen in this light, it would seem that claims about student protesters violating the free speech and discussion rights of other students are at best debatable, if not completely false. Can someone persuasively claim that protesters violated their right to ask Tom Ridge questions if they still had the opportunity to talk with him after President Kerrey ended the event? Such a claim if weak at best, but speaks to the tenacity of Milano and other students to engage with the issues and the speaker even given the political disruption.

As to the claim that the students opposed to Ridge had their free speech violated because Kerrey would not allow certain questions to be asked, and canceled it when they tried to ask them anyway, there may be some merit. However, their claim is weakened due to their choice of tactics which effectively prevented others from also speaking. Had those involved been vocal about their opposition to policies of Ridge and asked penetrating and relevant political questions without stopping others from doing the same, their case would be on more solid moral footing. However, many people have no interest in defending a person's right to stand up and curse, shout expletives and the like if it comes at the cost of silencing other students. If that is the price of their free speech, many would prefer the civil discourse, at least in this specific context. Given a different situation or different tactics, I believe many students would likely view the situation differently.

But even this position raises a deeper fundamental question, namely, do we only support and defend speech acts that we favor or condone, or do we defend them all across the board? This is where I find myself defending the student protests, even while strongly disagreeing with how they were done. It is a very dangerous position to advocate that only those things we like or approve of should be allowed. This type of logic leads to the suppression of minority views, a slippery slope we all want to prevent.

And perhaps this is one of the reasons this issue has caused so much existential angst. Where does defending free speech of student protesters infringe on the free speech of the student audience? I don't believe in a hierarchy of speech rights, but in this case, how can we evaluate the competing claims? The simple answer is that the critical students should be able to protest Tom Ridge and the institutional students should be able to listen and ask him questions, but how are both of those accommodated in a situation like this, where the very acts of disruption are the contested free speech points?

I think one of the comments from Milano Dean Lisa Servon, who introduced the Tom Ridge event, gets at the heart of this issue of protecting free expression, regardless of the political orientation of speakers:

I knew that many in our community would not agree with Ridge’s politics or positions, but agreement with all the positions of any guest speaker isn’t really the point. What matters most is the opportunity to hear the perspectives of the speakers we bring in, to ask questions, and to debate. (www.newschool.edu/milano/servonblog.aspx)

In this context, and considering all of the above discussion, I find myself leaning towards the following tentative position. Student do have an absolute right to acts of dissent and protest, I would never support anything that denies that fundamental and central liberty. But equally important is the need to ensure a free and safe space for discussion, debate and the free circulation of ideas—the ones we like and the ones we don't. Without that, open and free thought cannot proceed, and we begin to imitate the very dogmatic and authoritarian structures that our school was a response to.

Therefore it is deeply troubling to hear students of the critical persuasion make the following claim:

However, the controversy surrounding the decision to confront Ridge with his crimes has taken me quite by surprise. The overwhelmingly negative response suggests that this school is no longer in touch with its rich heritage of anti-fascism. (www.newschoolinexile.com/News/article/sid=72.html)

Since when did being anti-fascist imply we deny our political opponents the right to speak? If this is the politics stance some students wish to defend that is fine, but those not in agreement like myself need to articulate an alternative critique that does not take silencing others as its basis, even if we are fundamentally opposed to their position and politics. We cannot let our silence speak for us, especially if it comes at the cost of silencing others.

I believe we can balance both of these desires—that of free expression and that of political dissent—but we need to be mindful of the ramifications of our actions on the larger community, and not get caught up in the passion of the moment. There are many people at this school who are strongly opposed to everything Tom Ridge stood for and did as the Secretary of Homeland Security, but the actions of a handful of students last week have been taken as the entirety of the discourse on this matter by the President and the Board of Trustees.

The silence within the students and faculty on this matter has been construed as acquiescence by many people at the New School, and that acquiescence is the real danger to the legacy and values of the New School. If President Kerrey believes he can use this incident to bolster his position as a law-and-order president to the Board, or that this is just another example of the dangers of appeasing the radical fringes of the university, we need to vigorously counter these attempts to undermine our politics. We are far from silent on this matter, and if this incident should teach us anything, it is the importance of having an open and transparent debate on issues central to this institution, namely those of political dissent, free speech and the future direction of the New School. Rather than seeing this as a crisis, we should look to this as a learning opportunity. After all, aren't the issues of civil liberties, speech rights, creative and artistic freedoms and the like what we are supposed to be engaging with and about, as political theorists, social scientists, public policy students, artists and performers at the New School? But in order to do that, we need to talk to and with each other, and right now the silence is deafening.

chris crews
me@chriscrews.org


**This file can be downloaded as pdf ready to print as a 15 page pamphlet here.

• Posted by: alvinjohnson
• Topic: Letters and Statements

• Printer Friendly Page
• Send to a Friend