Noah Baron, Associate Editor
Ideology: Religious Progressive | Writing from: New York, New York
This past summer, I interned with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which fostered within me the free speech absolutism that I maintain to this day. There were six interns in total and, as one might have expected from interns at a free speech organization, all of us were ready to debate – and we did. A lot. Frequently, some of the other interns would wonder aloud how “social progressives” (those who design policy with an eye on the benefit of society at large) could possibly support free speech, since, they argued, the rights of individuals would carry little currency if they ever came into conflict with what they saw as the interests of society.
And indeed, we frequently found that many of the social progressives we encountered (many of whom were administrators at American universities) were, in fact, not in favor of free speech on their campuses (despite their claims to the contrary): we heard numerous stories of conservative or religious (and even students having their events shut down, or being charged excessive “security fees” for “controversial” speakers.
As I’ve learned more about free speech and dissent, however, I am now puzzled as to how social progressives could ever oppose free speech. Though at first it may appear counterintuitive, dissent is really a social good. The problem, however, is that humans are fundamentally social beings: time and time again, psychological research has demonstrated that people crave acceptance by their peers – regardless of whether we are 14 or 41 – and that we conform our behavior in order to achieve that acceptance. Frequently, social institutions serve to reinforce that tendency. And, unfortunately, this is all to the harm of society as a whole.
Cass Sunstein, in his book, Why Societies Need Dissent, points out the existence of what he terms “social cascades,” which occur when large groups of people end up thinking, doing, or believing the same thing as a result of the actions of only a few individuals. Though he says these are not necessarily bad (in fact, the “rational person” would frequently rely on these, because such social cues provide answers at a low “cost”), they do leave the possibility open for grave harm to come about by way of the propagation of misinformation.
Even assuming only bounded rationality, it is a fair assumption to make that most people will rely on information or decisions provided to the by others whom they respect or believe to be more knowledgeable about a given subject than themselves. As the population of people who relied on the judgment of others expands (in other words: there are people who relied on the judgment of someone else, whose decision relied on the judgment of the person before them, etc.), social pressure increases on individuals to conform. Thankfully, despite this, there are frequently dissenters. Such people serve as a disruption in the social cascade and, if they dissent loudly enough, can effectively end the cascade. Why is this important? Dissenters frequently point out problems with the idea being propagated by the cascade, and the resulting decision could be far better than the original one.
Some social progressives might ask: “but what if these people are misinformed, like the Deathers or the Tenth Amendment nuts? Shouldn’t we ban them from speaking?” My answer would still be no. Even if a dissenter is misinformed, disruptions of social cascades can still be good, because they force us to reconsider whether the decisions we are making are truly in our best interest and in the best interest of our society and country. And, if the dissenter truly is misinformed, by allowing him to express doubts about the impending social choice, it is now possible to confront him with facts and convince him that he really is wrong.
Nonetheless, dissent frequently comes with a high cost, especially in instances where there is a large amount of consensus within a community or society. Dissenters might face losing their jobs (as many Communists, socialists, and left-liberals did during the Red Scares), or social humiliation or isolation (as many conservative students do on today’s college campuses). If social progressives truly do design policy with an eye for what is best for society, then they should aim to decrease the costliness of dissent, so that more social cascades can be interrupted before we have to learn from our mistakes later on.
It is thus that I am not only baffled but truly concerned about the state of free speech on our nation’s campuses. On top of the actions of school administrators, I have frequently heard complaints from my more conservative friends that they feel uncomfortable expressing their beliefs in most places on campus – and Columbia is not alone in this respect. Though our college campuses might be hotbeds of American liberalism (or social progressivism, or left-wing-nut-ism), it is vital that universities serve not only as places of learning, but also of free and open inquiry. Fostering such an environment is not uniquely the responsibility of our school administrators either: only by confronting fellow students respectfully can we truly ensure the full and diligent consideration of policy.
Noah, as an addendum to your article, I propose some examination of the benefits column of the general term dissent. I’ll try and keep pretty words about how the world is fundamentally now thanks to the Internet to myself, but to say less than it has radically changed the information landscape would be deception of the highest order. So let us consider dissent for a moment. For this little discussion, I want to split people into two groups: the dissenters and nondissenters. I assume nondissenters have very few formed opinions regarding issues and that dissenters value a large following. Within dissenters, there are extremists and moderates.
I postulate dissent becomes less beneficial for a given dissenter due to a variant of crowding out leading to increased opportunity cost of information for nondissenters. This is doubly true when open dissent is discouraged.
Say we have a policy proposed by the government or members of government. Who dissents? Well, logic dictates that, ceteris peribus, those with greater disagreement with the policy are more likely to dissent for an equal or lesser level of difference. As such, someone who is extremely opposed is more likely to make the effort. Moderates, on the other hand, feel less pull to dissent due to less inherent disagreement. All well and good, but what about nondissenters?
Nondissenters face a sort of nightmare of demand smoothing which only a malevolent djinn could conjure up. Normally, variety is a social good. However, thousands upon thousands of opinions bombard the nondissenter via the Internet. As the number of stated, seemingly legitimate opinions increases, the opportunity cost of information for any given page view or absorbed opinion increases. Unfortunately then, all other things equal, the nondissenter will receive the greatest benefit from the opinions of more extreme dissenters than from those that are close to marginal on a given policy. This makes common sense, after all, as it’s very easy to evaluate the binary choice of agree/disagree when faced with an opinion with few nuances. Thus, extremists offer a clear opposition for a low cost, while moderates, due to parsing time, offer an unclear opposition or assent at a higher cost.
Compounding this, each individual dissenter is less likely to be heard due to the numbers of other dissenters. As the probability of winning a nondissenter’s favor decreases, the potential rewards for dissent must increase. Outside of the little model discussion, as the most accessible political dissent is confined to large, corporate bodies (cable news and book writers come to mind), the rewards of a large following seem even more unlikely for the individual dissenter given these barriers to entry. As such, we likely see falling benefits within the Internet age. Given these trends, we are probably more likely to have more cascades, rather than less, as many move to make dissent costlier (see the Obama administration’s defense of “anti-blasphemy” laws in the UN). If we factor in the predispositions of nondissenters, it becomes unclear exactly what they will do. Given the search and opportunity costs are lowest for extremists, we may see even greater degrees of polarization. Although more extreme dissenters have greater benefits, increased social costs of dissent may put pressure on them to not voice their opinions. However, many dissenters outside of this hypothetical believe it is their normative duty to express their opinions, which likely increases as extremism increases.
Thus, we can see an era of falling benefits to moderates and unclear changes to extremists. Thus, social costs (“you’re either with us or against us.”) may actually affect moderates more strongly than extremists . There is some historical precedent for this in the G. W. Bush administration. In an age when benefits to individual dissenters are falling due to increased search costs and opportunity costs of information, decreasing the individual cost borne by the dissenter is the only way to balance out the increased costs. As Noah points out, decreasing the overall level of dissent in society probably has negative external costs in the future, which we would want to avoid. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, in this age when access to and transmission of information is easier than ever, we ought to exert more effort toward allowing the active participation of dissenters in discourse.
great work Noah. I have but only one problem with something you said,”And, if the dissenter truly is misinformed, by allowing him to express doubts about the impending social choice, it is now possible to confront him with facts and convince him that he really is wrong.”
the convince him that he is really wrong statement kind of contradicts the purpose of free speech or the right to have your own opinion. I feel a better statement would have been”…confront him with the facts and let him draw his own conclusion.” or form his own educated opinion.
But that’s just my opinion.
Libertarian –
Just to clarify: my point wasn’t that someone should be forced to conform their opinion. Rather, if we are so convinced that we are right, we shouldn’t then be afraid of confronting those with whom we disagree in a debate and if the positions they hold are ridiculous, and the evidence is overwhelming, it is likely that by confronting them in open dialog, they will change their opinion on their own.
N
ya but that one word just didn’t make it sound that way, that’s all
This article brings me back to the Westboro Baptist Church. There are very few people out there who would defend the content of their statement that the gays caused 9/11 or that our soldiers deserve to die because they protect a country which is made of (in their words) “fags and fag-enablers.” However, they are very careful to stay within the bounds of their constitutional rights. In fact, their vocal and extreme dissent against the United States creates a valuable discussion point about how we as Americans really feel about a number of issues: our deep support of the troops fighting overseas, the concept of common decency, and the ultimate humanity of LGBT persons. Their statements are hateful and disgusting and I can take comfort in the knowledge that they will find themselves in the deepest levels of hell when they are judged by their maker, but while they are on this Earth, I will defend their right to speak as much as I would defend my own.
Do I like what they say? No. But do I appreciate the role they play? Yes. They start the conversations that many in this country are afraid to start and that is how we analyze policy in this country. Even a tiny minority’s dissent which will ultimately be disregarded by history is important because it gets us to think, and when we do that about one thing, we get addicted and start thinking about everything, and that is how we make progress.
This is quite possibly the best written work I’ve ever seen out of you. Keep it up.
Noah,
I echo your comments about the importance of free speech. College campuses and academia in general should be especially respectful of a truly free marketplace of ideas.
With that said, however, my personal experiences suggest that both right-wing and left-wing views are equally suppressed within the American academy. I feel like a variety of right-wing viewpoints, however, have monopolized this frustration. As far as left-wing victims go, Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado immediately comes to mind.
Tyler –
While, undoubtedly, there have been certain left-ish speakers who have been censored (Ward Churchill, as you point out), I think that the overall trend has been towards the suppression of right-wing or religious viewpoints (especially with regards to the perceived immorality of homosexuality), or with regard to Islam.
Like I said, I speak almost exclusively from my personal experiences. Patrick Deneen is an outspoken conservative professor in my University’s Department of Government. Nonetheless, he’s an extremely accomplished academic who was recently granted tenure. Yes, the campus left here at Georgetown (which I’m proudly apart of) isn’t his biggest fan but few of us (if anyone) wants him gone.
I would suggest that we don’t have as many conservative members of academia because there simply aren’t as many qualified academics as there are on the left. Additionally, many departments have a much larger representation of conservative professors. Economics (at least my college’s econ department) isn’t exactly a leftist friendly field of study. As someone who identifies with the left side of the political spectrum, I don’t account for that as some unfair bias in academia’s econ departments. Just like right-wing sociologists are few and far between, left-wing economics professors are outnumbered because, as a group, they’ve simply been outperformed by their conservative counterparts.
I wasn’t suggesting anything about professors or the number of conservatives or liberals within academia — I was talking about the fact that many *students* on college campuses feel like they can’t speak freely, and the fact that many student groups have had their events interfered with by school administrators.
In my experience, the faculty have generally been on the side of students/free expression, and it has been school administrators who have been hostile to it.