Photo from Medium

On March 4th, 2019, President of the University of Chicago, Robert J. Zimmer, issued the “news”: “Federal Action Regarding Free Expression on Campus.” Rather than viewing this email as “news,” I saw it as an declaration of Zimmer’s affirmative stance that the US government should not meddle with free expression on campus, and that he is justified to propose this stance.

First, let’s get several details straight:

• To:  Members of the University Community
• From:  Robert J. Zimmer
• Subject:  Federal Action Regarding Free Expression on Campuses
• Date:  March 4, 2019

The message was communicated through every person’s personal UChicago email, thus the intended audience of the message was the UChicago community. Although Zimmer does not state it explicitly in the message, he is the “president” of UChicago, and his email address affirms this: president@uchicago.edu. Outright, we would think that his writing possesses a certain direction and intent. The fact that the message is distributed via this “personal” email establishes an intimacy between sender and reader, for the message could very well have been published on the University of Chicago website or on a more official media platform. The title of the email suggests that the US government has “actively” affected the University, enhancing the urgency of the message. Lastly, the date of the message, which seems to refer to the date in which the message is distributed, highlights the idea that this is “breaking news.” There are several significant elements throughout this email that may speak to Alex Jones’ stance on objectivity as well as Stanley Fish’s stance on free speech.

In the opening paragraph, Zimmer claims that he is speaking on behalf of the student body at UChicago and that his declaration is for the good of this community:

Failing to provide an education of deep intellectual challenge supported by an environment of free expression is selling students short and would fail to live up to our highest aspirations as educators. (Zimmer)

In essence, Zimmer is denouncing the federal government before this “federal action” is even addressed. The statement here is a potential consequence for the reader audience, who are the “victims” of the consequence. Further, Zimmer stresses that his stance on this issue not something new, in which government non-intervention has persisted throughout UChicago history and across institutions:

The University of Chicago has embraced this perspective throughout its history, and the statement by the Faculty Committee on Free Expression articulated this long-held position in what is now widely known as the Chicago Principles. These principles have been adopted by over 50 higher education institutions since they were articulated in January 2015. (Zimmer)

Zimmer suggests that he is not alone in this fight, and he has every reason to continue it. The problem at this point in the message is the fact that the reader still does not understand what the federal government did to have Zimmer propose this message in the first place. We are merely bombarded by a radical stance with no substance addressing the root of the problem. Zimmer introduces another problem in the last sentence of this paragraph: “However, the difficulty many institutions of higher education have in cultivating an environment of free expression on their respective campuses remains a serious challenge.” Now, it seems that the problem with free expression is not with the federal government but with the institution itself.

In the following paragraph, Zimmer provides his firm stance on the issue of freedom of expression in relation to the federal government of a past event:

In 2017, I testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, chaired by Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator Alexander asked me at that time whether I thought Congress should address free expression on campus through federal legislation. I replied unequivocally that I was opposed to any such federal legislation. (Zimmer)

The problem with this passage is what “address” actually means. It is not an aggressive word like, say, “regulation” or “control,” which was my initial impression of federal “action.” This mild word choice only suggests that the US government intends to assert some force over free speech at UChicago, but there is no solid evidence of any of it. Although Zimmer seems to be more “objective” by providing the federal side of the issue, he does so vaguely at best, as just a gesture.

In the last supporting paragraph, Zimmer details two “related features of potential Federal engagement”:

• Federal government establishing its own standing to interfere in the issue of speech on campuses.
• Inevitable establishment of a bureaucracy to enforce any governmental position. (Zimmer)

His writing reasonably establishes how these engagements are threats to UChicago; however, these threats are presented as merely “potential,” for nothing that he explains about Congress’ side is grounded in factual evidence. This “potential” quality is not reflected in the email title and is only conveyed in the last paragraph.

Throughout the message, we notice that Zimmer establishes a stance with a distinct voice. To what extent can we analyze the message in relation to objectivity? If we were to consider it as “news,” or breaking news in this case, it is important to bring up Alex Jones writing, “Objectivity’s Last Stand.” Jones claims that “people—especially young people—don’t want objective news anymore. They want to hear a voice” (Jones, 84). Indeed, Zimmer pronounces his disgust with any federal action in free speech on campus, whether realized or potential, thus in this sense, the writing is nowhere near objective.

Furthermore, we can be sure the writing is not objective because Zimmer presents a very narrow view of what the government side actually wants to do. Jones defines journalistic objectivity as “a genuine effort to be an honest broker when it comes to news. That means playing it straight without favoring one side when the facts are in dispute, regardless of your own views and preferences” (Jones, 82). First off, it is important to note that the message is fairly short, inevitably condensing and omitting a lot of details in the issue. Zimmer must choose facts selectively (Jones, 87), and based on the analysis of the limited and vague presentation of the federal side of the issue, Zimmer does not provide the “best truth possible” (Jones, 88). Because the problem at hand is not party partisanship, the message should be less about providing two-sided voices and more about providing evidence to explain the situation, which Zimmer heavily lacks, or perhaps, chooses not to disclose.

Besides the issue of objectivity is the other problem that Zimmer mentions, free speech in academic institutions. In “There is No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” Stanley Fish believes that free speech can never exist because it can never be “free of consequences and free from state pressure” (Fish, 114). What Zimmer seeks to do with this message is the latter—release free speech at UChicago from state pressure. What about the former then, for it seems that there is no possible way out? I would like to take on an alternative perspective against Fish and argue that free speech does exist.

Fish believes that free speech is “just the name we give to verbal behavior that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance” (Fish, 103). I do not doubt the validity of this statement. But, it is precisely Fish’s point that any institution inevitably has a belief system that ironically helped me establish my own rebuttal against him:

[…] at the heart of these colleges and universities is a set of beliefs, and it would be wrong to require them to tolerate behavior, including speech behavior, inimical to those beliefs…all educational institutions rest on some set of beliefs—no institution is “just there” independent of any purpose […] (Fish, 114)

The phenomenon here is that any institution, whether academic or not, is first established upon a system of beliefs. Indeed, as Fish states, “freedom has never been general and has always been understood against the background of an original exclusion that gives it meaning” (104). Different people believe in different things, and because “every idea is an incitement to somebody” (106), the very formation of such institutions constitute the freedom of expression in the United States. They are the unit spaces of tolerance that allow you to promote your desired area of self-expression.

In other words, we must think in reverse: freedom of expression is a matter of the potential for space, not a matter of restriction within space, and by space, I mean a space of tolerance for the expression of thoughts. The First Amendment gives people the right to freedom of expression by allowing all of these individualistic spaces to flourish. As Fish has it, if a space doesn’t accommodate to your needs for expression, there is no such thing as free speech. Indeed, there is no free speech within that space, but you may find your place in other spaces, or you can create your own outlet, your own space. Thus, free speech exists.

We understand that free speech should not be considered as something bestowed upon us through law such as the First Amendment, but rather naturally granted to us from birth. However, it is also important to consider that we live in a society made possible by order and law, thus even freedom is no longer a “natural” right. If you really wanted absolute freedom of expression, then do not partake in human society, and if you cannot achieve this, then find freedom within the restrictions of law, for it is still very much possible.

Works Cited

• Fish, Stanley. There is No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, too. Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Jones, Alex. “Objectivity’s Last Stand.” Losing the News: The Uncertain Future of the News that Feeds Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2009.
• Zimmer, Robert J. “Federal Action Regarding Free Expression on Campuses.” Received by S. L., 4 March 2019.