Defining the limits of speech to help make space for debate that is truly open and inclusive.
Over the last few years, I have written several times about speech in an academic context. It is a topic which reemerges fairly regularly in our space, a natural result of working in a community of ideas supported by the values of free inquiry and expression. It is healthy to revisit these first principles, to ensure we are living up to our core ideals and that these ideals do indeed continue to reflect the best we can do as a community. Few principles are as fundamental to our community as our engagement with speech, the expression of our ideas.
The work of public health is, in large part, the work of acting on ideas and data that emerge from a context of free inquiry and open debate. This is reflected in our school’s mission to “Think. Teach. Do.” We are able to do because we can think and teach in a context where our minds can be truly open to the ideas and practices that shape a healthier world. It is important, then, to continually reexamine what we are doing to ensure our community supports such a context. With this in mind, today’s Note will be the first of a two-part reflection on speech and our community. Today will focus on the challenge of defining and engaging with objectionable speech and those who express views with which we do not agree. Next week will address how we speak collectively as an institution on issues of consequence, including issues of speech.
Read more here.