My Conversation with Google Bard about Free Speech on College Campuses
Recently, I found myself experimenting with generative AI tools for creating content ideas to address the controversy over free speech on campuses, which erupted in the wake of the testimony of university presidents before Congress. I have strong feelings about the way this has been unfolding, and wanted to address parts of the conversation that I felt had been underexplored.
Like many folks, I've been playing around with ChatGPT and other AI tools, and I particularly appreciated the way that Google Bard structures its answers, gives multiple versions to peruse, and allows you to simultaneously maintain various conversations over the long-term. So I asked Bard for a blog post about this issue, specifying some of my own priorities.
Not only was I impressed with what it spit out, I wound up essentially having a conversation with Bard that exposed some of the vital nuance around this issue, and I figured I'd share the results, but with some of my own commentary [in brackets]. So here, for your enjoyment and engagement, is my conversation with Bard.
My initial prompt: "Write a blog post about how colleges can avoid controversies like the one that recently faced university presidents by ensuring that their speech codes, if they exist, are clear and transparently and evenly enforced."
Bard's answer:
The recent wave of controversy surrounding university presidents and their alleged violations of speech codes [here we see evidence of these AI tools' lack of recent information, since the controversy was obviously around something else] has exposed a delicate tightrope walk for higher education institutions. On one hand, colleges must uphold principles of free expression and open debate, even when faced with uncomfortable or offensive viewpoints. On the other hand, they have a responsibility to create safe and inclusive environments for all students and faculty. So, how can colleges navigate this complex terrain and avoid becoming embroiled in controversy?
Clarity is Key: Transparent and Consistent Speech Codes
The first step is ensuring that any speech codes in place are clear, transparent, and evenly enforced. Ambiguity breeds confusion and opens the door to accusations of bias. Vague terms like "offensive" or "disruptive" leave too much room for interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent application of the code. Colleges must define prohibited behaviors in specific and objective terms, outlining exactly what constitutes a violation and the potential consequences.
[This is one of the primary issues causing backlash, even among those who are inherently skeptical of these speech codes' existence, since lots of people feel these presidents set themselves up for accusations of hypocrisy by previously coming out in favor of Black Lives Matter protesters, yet trying to take a more institutionally neutral approach when it comes to protesters around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many people feel the current issue is a tougher call, since most of the people driving the conversation have sympathies on both sides of the question, especially among those on the left who tend to comprise the majority of voices on campus. The call for racial justice seemed more cut and dry for progressives, but even some liberals have pointed out that taking an institutional stance on that issue can create difficult precedents for the future. For this reason, over 100 colleges and universities have adopted the "Chicago Statement" which holds, in part, that "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," and essentially establishing a stance of institutional neutrality on any political issues.]
Transparency goes beyond the wording of the code itself. Colleges should make the code readily accessible to all members of the community, along with clear explanations of its purpose and application. This fosters understanding and discourages selective enforcement based on personal opinions or political agendas. Additionally, establishing fair and transparent appeal processes allows individuals who feel they have been unfairly targeted to seek redress.
Open Dialogue and Education
Beyond simply having a well-defined code, colleges must foster a culture of open dialogue and education around free speech and its limits. This can involve workshops and seminars [I would love to work with schools on this!] that explore the nuances of free expression, the impact of hateful speech, and the importance of respectful discourse. By equipping students and faculty with the tools to navigate these complex issues, colleges can create a more informed and responsible community less prone to misunderstandings and conflict.
Context Matters: Proportionality and Due Process
Even with a clear and transparent code, applying it fairly requires careful consideration of context. A single offensive statement uttered in the heat of a debate may not warrant the same consequences as a sustained campaign of harassment or discrimination. Colleges must employ a sense of proportionality in their responses, ensuring that punishments fit the severity and intent of the violation. [One of the sticking points in the debate over pro-Palestinian protesters on campus has been whether their rhetoric targets specific people or a general group. This is one of the distinctions that's relevant regarding the First Amendment, and it makes sense that even private schools would take this into account.]
Furthermore, due process is essential to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of power. Clear guidelines for investigations, hearings, and appeals should be established and adhered to in every case. This protects individuals from arbitrary sanctions and upholds the principles of justice and fairness that should be the cornerstone of any academic community. [Regarding many of the debates we're having around speech these days, this, I think, is one of the most important considerations. While it's entirely legitimate that some speech might be considered dangerous to a community, both on campus and on social media, if the decisions to proscribe that speech are made in the dark and outside of a clearly written set of guidelines, it's a recipe for abuse, and sets a dangerous precedent that is likely to be used against those the censors are trying to protect in the future.]
Navigating the Gray Areas: Balancing Principles and Responsibilities
Inescapably, there will always be gray areas where free expression and inclusivity collide. Colleges must approach these situations with sensitivity and nuance, seeking solutions that uphold both core principles. This may involve facilitating difficult conversations, mediating conflicts, and finding common ground between diverse perspectives. [Here, it's important to provide the right forums for these conversations, in which people from a variety of perspectives have a sense of psychological safety. It's much easier to have these conversations productively when we're face-to-face, and when we're not being recorded such that our words can be weaponized against us amid the heated conversation that's taking place elsewhere. When we're not publicly representing one of the binary tribes that we seem to adhere to in the current moment, we're much more likely to extend each other the benefit of the doubt if we experience something that can create discomfort or offense for some.] Ultimately, the goal should be to create a campus environment where open discourse can flourish within the boundaries of mutual respect and human dignity.
By embracing clarity, fostering open dialogue, and ensuring due process, colleges can equip themselves to navigate the complex terrain of speech codes and avoid becoming embroiled in needless controversy. Remember, the pursuit of a truly inclusive and intellectually stimulating learning environment requires a delicate balance between free expression and responsibility. By prioritizing both, colleges can create a space where all voices can be heard, challenged, and ultimately contribute to the vibrant tapestry of academic discourse.
[That was the end, and I was honestly pretty impressed by this piece of "writing" from Bard. But I hadn't asked it to interrogate the basic legitimacy of speech codes in private campuses—public campuses are a different story, since they're obliged to comply with the First Amendment—about which some of us are skeptical.]
So I prompted it again: Add a note of skepticism about whether speech codes are ever justified.
Bard's reply:
You're absolutely right, and I owe it to the discussion to acknowledge the inherent skepticism surrounding speech codes. While the blog post outlines their potential benefits in ensuring inclusivity and preventing harm, their existence itself poses significant challenges to the core principle of free expression. [Well put, Bard, especially for places like college campuses where the prerogative of "free expression" is specifically geared towards ensuring that students are fully exposed to different streams of thought as they're forming their own philosophical identities.]
One could argue that even the most transparent and evenly enforced speech code creates a chilling effect, where individuals self-censor for fear of violating its boundaries. [And indeed the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reports this is happening a lot on campuses—a quarter of students do it "fairly often" or "very often."] This stifles intellectual exploration and debate, potentially suppressing valuable perspectives in the quest for a harmonious environment. Additionally, the very act of defining certain categories of speech as unacceptable raises questions about who gets to decide what qualifies as "offensive" or "harmful." This opens the door to ideological biases and the potential for abuse of power by those entrusted with enforcing the code. [This is directly relevant to the objections that people have raised around the consistency of the leadership of those university presidents.]
Furthermore, critics argue that the best antidote to harmful speech is more speech, not silencing. Open and robust debate, even when uncomfortable, allows for the testing and refining of ideas through argument and counter-argument. Shielding individuals from potentially offensive viewpoints may foster intellectual fragility and hinder critical thinking skills. [And in the age of the social media conversation, it can serve to relegate those unorthodox viewpoints to areas of the web that are less subject to scrutiny and debate. It's not great if all the conservatives are talking to one another on Truth Social or X, while all the progressives are conversing on Threads or Reddit. Luckily, this doesn't seem to be happening...yet.]
Ultimately, the debate around speech codes boils down to a fundamental question: how much can be sacrificed in the pursuit of inclusivity and safety before it undermines the very principles of free expression and open inquiry that define academic institutions? There's no easy answer, and navigating this tension will require constant vigilance, critical reflection, and a commitment to upholding both individual rights and collective well-being.
By adding this note of skepticism, the blog post becomes a more nuanced exploration of the issue, acknowledging the complexity and acknowledging [look at that, Bard makes readability mistakes just like us humans!] the ongoing debate about whether speech codes can ever truly be reconciled with the ideals of a free and open society.
[I agree, but at this point I was reflecting on a conversation with someone skeptical of my skepticism, and feeling like that viewpoint needed to be explored as well.]
My final prompt to Bard: But don't you think that the people arguing for free speech are the ones benefiting from it because they're in power, and naturally always have a bigger platform?
Bard's reply:
It's true that advocating for free speech can raise important questions about power dynamics and access to platforms. The concern that those in power benefit most from free speech due to their existing platforms is valid and deserves deeper exploration. Here are some points to consider:
Power Imbalances and Free Speech:
Amplification Bias: Those with greater resources and established platforms, often including powerful individuals and institutions, have an easier time amplifying their voices and shaping public discourse. This can drown out marginalized voices and create an uneven playing field where free speech benefits the privileged.
Chilling Effects: While powerful individuals might wield free speech to their advantage, others, particularly those from marginalized groups, might face "chilling effects." The fear of repercussions, harassment, or violence can silence their voices and restrict their ability to express themselves freely. [This is precisely why the heckler's veto that so many college students endorse these days—63% now support shouting down speakers as a form of protest—is so dangerous. The most powerful groups have the ability to do this most easily. At least it's better than physically blocking other students from attending (which 45% now support) or even using violence (27% support!!!).]
Control of Platforms: The concentration of power in the hands of a few companies controlling major platforms (e.g., social media) raises concerns about their ability to silence or amplify voices selectively, further impacting how power dynamics play out in free speech. [My earlier point precisely, and the focus of the Twitter Files and other issues covered extensively by Matt Taibbi.]
Addressing the imbalance:
Promoting Inclusivity: Measures like amplifying marginalized voices, providing platform access to diverse groups, and fostering respectful dialogue can help create a more equitable environment for free speech. [How do we do these things? These somewhat strike me as platitudes that raise the question of who would lead the efforts and decide which voices and groups to support, but I do imagine there are productive versions of this that we can develop together. It's difficult, though.]
Combating Disinformation: Countering misinformation and hate speech that disproportionately harms marginalized groups is crucial for ensuring genuine free speech, not weaponized manipulation. [There's definitely a case to be made for this, but again, it leads to judgments about what constitutes misinformation and "hate speech"—which has no legal definition in the U.S. in contrast to other countries—and which free speech is "genuine."]
Decentralization: Supporting alternative platforms and fostering a diverse media landscape can help break the dominance of a few powerful gatekeepers and democratize access to public discourse. [Very true, but it can also lead to more fragmentation of the discourse, with each group talking only to itself.]
The Importance of Nuanced Debate:
While concerns about power imbalances are valid, it's crucial not to dismiss the importance of free speech entirely. It remains a vital tool for dissent, challenging powerful interests, and exposing injustices. Moreover, silencing certain voices, even those holding harmful views, can set a dangerous precedent and lead to further suppression of dissenting opinions.
The key lies in recognizing the complexities of power dynamics and striving for a more equitable and inclusive environment where free speech empowers all voices, not just the privileged few. This requires ongoing critical reflection, addressing power imbalances, and actively promoting platforms for diverse voices to be heard.
In conclusion, while those in power often benefit more from the current state of free speech, dismissing it outright would be detrimental. We must strive for a future where free speech serves as a tool for empowerment and dissent, not just perpetuating the existing power structures. This requires acknowledging the challenges, addressing them through active countermeasures, and building a more inclusive and equitable platform for genuine free expression.
[Thus ended my conversation with Bard about the issue, and I appreciated that Bard ended each of its answers with an emphasis on a balanced approach. While each of us lands at a different spot on the spectrum between free expression and a regulated discourse, as with so many other issues it's vital that we always be considering the counterpoint—what may I have missed that's important to the other side? To me, that point sounds pretty meta, and supportive of unfettered speech itself, but in the spirit of that balance, I must readily acknowledge that there are times when my free speech rights infringe upon rights of others, and none of this is ever simple. But let's keep having this conversation. It's one I'd much rather have with each of you than with a bot.]