Americans often take for granted that they can say just about anything without the looming concern of dire consequences. They can assume a position on something, announce it as vehemently as they like, and avoid censure regardless of the fact that someone else doesn’t approve of it. This idea was fundamental to the formation of the United States, and it is still upheld in terms of legal precedent and enforcement. Yet a change in the way free speech is viewed and practiced could profoundly alter our relationship to it. Specifically, microaggressions negatively affect the culture of unabridged speech and ideas.
I’ll define microaggressions shortly, but I first need to contextualize the problem. The history of promoting free speech in this country is long and mostly consistent. Since it was included as a right in the First Amendment, freedom of speech has been a cornerstone of American culture. Some constraints on free speech do exist, such as laws regarding libel, slander, fighting words, etc. Thus, the courts often loosely interpret the free speech aspect of the First Amendment.
For instance, in the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning flag burning were in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court considered the importance of free speech so great that they placed it above respect for the country. Furthermore, Delgado and Stefancic explain that the laws of free speech remain outside the realm of “legal realism.” Therefore, they are interepreted very broadly. The legally flexible view of free speech has in turn led to a culture of open expression.
However, a new social movement now attempts to put more constraints on what can be said. As Delgado and Stefancic point out, this is particularly true in Higher Education. Administrators have attempted to enact policies that would ban speech they deem disrespectful to particular groups. These bans often go against legal policy and precedent. This changing attitude is affecting the culture of free speech. The emphasis on mainly harmonious discord is being translated into the curriculum of the institution. Consequently, this indoctrination might impact how free speech is viewed by future generations.
As a result of this new attitude, a multitude of emerging concepts challenge our traditional understanding of certain terminologies. This includes the notion of microaggressions. Proponents of this movement seek to foster various forms of cultural awareness. Microaggressions are unconscious acts or figures of speech that are said to have a negative effect on another group of people, usually a minority. Osanloo, Boske, and Newcomb describe microaggressions as “oppressive intercultural behaviors [that] are neither minor nor insignificant.” A simple example of a microaggression is, “‘I don’t think you are really Guatemalan. You don’t look Guatemalan to me.’” Another is the previously sacrosanct “‘America is the land of opportunity.’” Clearly, the microaggression reflects an altering concept of free speech that deviates from open expression.
Nevertheless, many doubt the usefulness of this new attitude. They view microaggressions as contradictory, counterproductive, and outright ridiculous. For instance, one student recently said, “‘I do think that there’s something to be said about exposing yourself to ideas other than your own, but I’ve had enough of that after my fifth year.’” Five years of college should have taught the student the exact opposite. This unwillingness to entertain contradictory opinions is utterly alien to the original notion of free speech. Some vehemently oppose this attitude. Lukianoff and Haidt call it vindictive protectiveness. The stifling of free speech is hostile to our country’s most basic values, they argue.
This cultural shift is a manifestation of a broader cultural schism. It is impossible to discuss free speech without discussing the notion of freedom itself. America’s inception was based on open expression. Freedom of speech is a tenet of the First Amendment. The original view of freedom, then, is not just freedom from oppression. It includes freedom of thought, expression, discourse, and disagreement. The ability to have a discussion, and to disagree, is seen as the pinnacle of freedom itself. It represents a world where homogeny of thought and obedience to a higher authority are neither demanded nor encouraged.
This is the problem with microaggressions. When people are continuously required to monitor their speech to such extremes, they walk on eggshells. This hinders high-grade thinking and the willingness to express it. People fear stepping beyond the bounds of “acceptable” speech.
True, some see censorship as freedom from oppression and discomfort. Unfortunately, this alternative line of reasoning could potentially extend beyond redefining free speech. It could drastically alter the ideological fabric of the country. The right to freedom of speech is as old as the country. For most of its history, it has been interpreted in a very loose and open sense, both legally and culturally.
People have always disagreed over the concept of what America is and ought to be. The country’s formation relied on open discourse. Free-fire expression led to a fuller understanding of ideas being addressed, followed by compromise. Today’s “discourse” has become so muddled that it barely qualifies as such. We talk in such highly static, preset frameworks, with such unbridled authority in our own righteousness, that we can no longer understand one another. Perhaps the way to appreciate free speech and how to approach it lies not in open speech but in the willingness to truly listen.
***
Brianna Russell-Weddington is a writer from the Colorado Springs area.
