Psychologists: 'There is no alternative to free speech'

May 2, 2018 by Susan Kelley, Cornell University
Credit: Cornell University

Colleges and universities across the country are struggling with the question of who decides what is acceptable speech on campus. When does a controversial topic become hate speech? When should it be allowed as free speech?

Two Cornell researchers say 's extensive study of bias offers an important lens through which to view these conflicts, as we strive to understand and reduce them.

There is no alternative to free speech, say co-authors Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams in "Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer." Their analysis appeared May 2 in Perspectives in Psychological Science as the lead article in the issue.

"There is no alternative to free speech, because every controversial topic has a substantial group of people who view it as hate speech," said Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology. "If we define unacceptable speech in terms of topics students say should be banned because they make them feel marginalized or uncomfortable, then we remove all controversial topics from consideration."

Added Williams, professor of human development: "Feeling discomfort and angst at hearing words is not a legal reason to shut down other people's rights to say those things."

Since the 1950s, psychological science has demonstrated that many types of bias can prevent opposing sides from accepting the validity of each other's arguments, the authors say.

Selective perception makes opponents on an issue literally see things differently. In 1954, researchers showed a film of a 1951 football game – Princeton versus Dartmouth, well-known for its competitive, rough play – to two groups: one of Princeton fans and the other of Dartmouth boosters. Each team's supporters saw the majority of flagrant violations as having been committed by opposing players.

For people with selective bias, "it's not just that they interpret their perceptions differently; they actually see different things," Ceci said.

In "myside" bias, people look for evidence that supports their opinions and ignore or downgrade evidence that contradicts them. "Blind-spot bias comes from deep identification with a cause. We believe we are especially enlightened, while our opponents' affiliation with the opposite side leads them to be biased," Ceci said. Similarly, naïve realism makes people feel their views are grounded in reality but their opponents' are not.

These and many other biases explain why a sizable percentage of students favor banning nearly every controversial topic, the authors said.

For example, a Cato Institute survey of 3,000 Americans with university experience found:

  • 40 percent would ban a speaker who says men on average are better than women at math;
  • 51 percent would ban claims that all white people are racist;
  • 49 percent would ban statements that Christians are backward and brainwashed;
  • 49 percent would ban speech that criticizes police;
  • 41 percent would ban speakers who say undocumented immigrants should be deported;
  • 74 percent said universities should cancel speakers if students threaten violent protest;
  • 19 percent said violence is justified to stifle speakers who might make others uncomfortable;
  • and 51 percent said it was OK to prevent others from hearing a speaker.

"In such a climate, the heckler's veto reigns supreme and any expression that is offensive to any subgroup on campus would be banned," Williams said.

College experiences should involve challenging our beliefs, even when those experiences go beyond our comfort level, and no campus group has the right to determine for the entire community what can be discussed, the authors said.

Universities can take several steps to help students avoid the biases that prevent them from valuing other points of view and to reduce extremist views and confrontations, they said.

Just as colleges require that freshmen understand codes of conduct for sexual harassment, plagiarism and intoxication, they could require freshmen to understand the differences between free speech and , between First Amendment protections and speech codes, and the meaning of "evidence."

Role-playing exercises could be woven into controversial seminars in which supporters of each side are asked to switch sides. And universities could organize civil debates on controversial topics.

Students should be made to understand they are entering a place that believes deeply in the importance of dialogue and , Ceci said.

"Free speech isn't just for opinions that we all share. That kind of speech doesn't need protecting," he said. "It's for expressions that can be vile and hateful and disgusting. That has to be part of the cultural understanding."

Explore further: New study may lead to changes in treatment of ALS patients

More information: Stephen J. Ceci et al. Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer, Perspectives on Psychological Science (2018). DOI: 10.1177/1745691618767324

Related Stories

New study may lead to changes in treatment of ALS patients

December 19, 2017
A Penn State study brings researchers one step closer to better understanding and treating dysarthria, a type of speech disorder, in people with ALS.

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free-speech defense' of racist language

May 3, 2017
Two researchers at the University of Kansas have conducted a study suggesting that "explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the 'free speech defense' of racist expression."

Facebook now deleting 66K posts a week in anti-hate campaign

June 27, 2017
Facebook said Tuesday that it deleted about 66,000 posts a week in the last two months as the social media giant cracks down on what it deems to be hate speech.

Recommended for you

Junk food diet raises depression risk, researchers find

December 18, 2018
A diet of fast food, cakes and processed meat increases your risk of depression, according to researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University.

Looking on bright side may reduce anxiety, especially when money is tight

December 17, 2018
Trying to find something good in a bad situation appears to be particularly effective in reducing anxiety the less money a person makes, possibly because people with low incomes have less control over their environment, according ...

Levels of gene-expression-regulating enzyme altered in brains of people with schizophrenia

December 14, 2018
A study using a PET scan tracer developed at the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has identified, for the first time, epigenetic differences between the brains of individuals ...

Self-perception and reality seem to line-up when it comes to judging our own personality

December 14, 2018
When it comes to self-assessment, new U of T research suggests that maybe we do have a pretty good handle on our own personalities after all.

Video game players frequently exposed to graphic content may see world differently

December 13, 2018
People who frequently play violent video games are more immune to disturbing images than non-players, a UNSW-led study into the phenomenon of emotion-induced blindness has shown.

Researchers discover abundant source for neuronal cells

December 13, 2018
USC researchers seeking a way to study genetic activity associated with psychiatric disorders have discovered an abundant source of human cells—the nose.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet May 02, 2018
Thank you for saying what all conservatives know and all liberals wish they could hide from.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.