There is something magical about the start of a new school year. I’m not sure if it is the packs of fresh pens and pencils or the shiny new notebooks, but the collective attitude of people is filled with possibility and new beginnings. You might be heading back to school or starting a new cycle of learning in your work life. For our Jewish friends, it is the start of a new year with the celebration of Rosh Hashanah. For many of us, it is simply a new beginning as the seasons cycle. Wherever you find yourself, I ask you to consider free speech.

We talk about free speech in this country — a lot. But do we talk to each other or at each other? Do we even know what free speech is? I’ve been thinking a lot about this and decided to do some research. According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.” What does that mean?

The U.S. Supreme Court constantly weighs what is protected speech. It has determined that the following direct speech (words) and symbolic speech (actions) are protected, including not to salute the flag (1943); school students wearing armbands to school to protest a war (1969); the use of certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (1971); to contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns (1976); to advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions) (1976 and 1977); and to engage in symbolic speech by burning the flag (1989 and 1990).

Using those examples as our lens of understanding, it suddenly becomes clear that kneeling at a football game during the national anthem is well within one’s free speech. It is also clear that burning the flag is not a violation of the Constitution, rather, it can be an exercise of the Constitution. Yet many of us struggle with these concepts in practice as well as in theory.

What isn’t protected? Inciting actions that would harm others (1919); making or distributing obscene materials (1957); burning draft cards as anti-war protest (1968); students making obscene speech at a school-sponsored event (1986); permitting students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration (1988); or students advocating illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event (2007).

Again, using these examples as our lens of understanding, can we understand how holding rallies where groups chanting racist and anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic speech becomes blurry? Are the participants conveying a political message? Are their words inciting violence?

My personal view is that these messages are harmful. It is equally if not more harmful for those messages to be hidden. It becomes to my mind the difference between conscious and unconscious bias. To this end, we must provide more speech, to publicly and clearly provide evidence that challenges that speech. It requires a willingness to have deep, thoughtful discussion with people who see the world differently from the way we do and to consider not only their perspectives but also the marketplace of ideas and perspectives we cannot arrive at on our own. It requires critical-thinking skills.

There is a lot of talk about critical race theory these days. It has been defined as everything that is wrong with America and Americans, as cancel culture and as a way to victimize and oppress people. However, what is not getting much speech is its actual definition. Critical race theory was articulated by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw and Richard Delgado, along with others. It points out the intersections between race and our legal systems, social structures and social norms. It explicitly exposes white supremacy found within those structures.

Before you stop listening, let me be clear: If you are white, this does not mean you are evil or the original cause of structural, institutional and systemic racism. Instead, what this means is that you may currently benefit from structures, institutions and systems created by others at the cost of Black and brown bodies. We see ongoing impacts from these things in everything from housing to education to health care — really, every component of our lives.

That requires us, all of us, to openly examine the stories we tell and have been told all our lives. Everything from the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery to Japanese internment was to protect Japanese-Americans from the rest of the country, and so much more. In this case, what we are looking at is beyond critical race theory to speech — words that give us a more complete picture of the world that was, the world that is and the world that can be.

For this reason, I invite you to join me at Weber State University’s 23rd Annual Diversity Conference where we will explore free speech on Thursday, Sept. 30, and Friday, Oct. 1. This virtual free event is open to the public. For more details, please visit weber.edu/diversity/diversityconference.html.

Adrienne G. Andrews is the Assistant Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer for Weber State University. Twitter: AdieAndrewsCDO

Newsletter