Alumni, faculty, and students bring free speech commitment to Davidson College


By Jessica Wills

FIRE

March 16, 2023


Davidson College just took a big step toward building a more speech-friendly campus. Through its new “Commitment to Freedom of Expression,” Davidson promises its whole campus community will have the ability to work and learn without the risk of censorship. 


The commitment was formally adopted on March 6, 2023 and decisively states, “The role of the college is to sustain an environment in which all students can freely learn.” Furthermore, “It is not the proper role of the College to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find uncomforting, disagreeable, or offensive.”


FIRE commends Davidson for clearly articulating that it’s always better to battle offensive speech with more speech rather than with censorship — stating that the potential discomfort free speech can cause is far outweighed by its benefits. 


According to the college’s press release, “The statement also confronts head-on the idea that the principles of diversity and free expression are at odds. Instead, the commitment declares, they are essential to each other.” 


Davidson argues that diversity and freedom of speech are complementary, not incompatible, as some would make them out to be. Guaranteeing free expression is the best way to ensure diverse people and ideas can flourish in the college environment.


“Our nation needs more of what Davidson can provide—a place where debate runs civilly and freely, in a residence hall or a lecture hall,” said former North Carolina governor James G. Martin, a Davidson alumnus and former faculty member who helped craft the free speech statement and who fervently believes in the value of a Davidson education. The commitment, Martin noted, was created by talking across differences between students, faculty, and alumni. “This commitment was crafted by a group who came from different backgrounds, experiences and ideologies, and those differences brought a lasting result.” 


Martin is also a member of Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse, an alumni group whose advocacy work was instrumental in the statement’s adoption. The DFTD has petitioned the college for a free expression statement since 2018, when it sent a letter to then-college President Carol Quillen, asking her administration to adopt the “Chicago Statement,” like almost 100 other United States colleges and universities. The principles outlined in the statement are meant to encourage discussion across differences, protect civil liberties, and guarantee that students will leave college ready to participate in our democracy.


In 2021, President Quillen appointed a taskforce to develop a free expression statement specifically for Davidson College. Among the appointed task force members was Martin. In a couple of months, the task force returned with a statement that mirrored the Chicago Statement’s free speech protections. 


While waiting for the statement’s adoption, the alumni group collected 172 signatures, including 19 from former trustees of the college. In 2022, they submitted these signatures to the board of trustees, to encourage it to adopt the free expression statement drafted by the taskforce. 


Finally, on March 6, 2023, under the leadership of new college President Douglas A. Hicks, Davidson announced its formal adoption of a free expression statement entitled “Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression.” Watching this years-long struggle to bring a free expression statement to Davidson reminds us at FIRE that the work we’re doing with alumni activists is worthwhile. 


John E. Craig, chairman of the DFTD Board of Directors, said, DFTD “is delighted that Davidson's faculty has affirmed a strong Freedom of Expression Statement. Our DFTD alumni group has been urging for this since 2018, and we are grateful for the careful thought and hard work that went into the creation and now affirmation of the Statement.” 


Alumni often reach out to FIRE because they are frustrated with their college’s tendency to censor students and faculty. They reminisce about the great debates they had during undergrad and shake their heads at the thought that their children and grandchildren might not have the same opportunity. Some become convinced that there is nothing they can do to help their alma maters. But the success of alumni groups like Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse prove alumni, especially together, have the power to create real change for their alma maters. 


Alumni, faculty, and students bring free speech commitment to Davidson College | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)



15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.
07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.
03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: