A thaw in the ice as MIT faculty adopt free speech-friendly Chicago Statement

The holidays are the time when we reflect on the past and express gratitude for all that we possess. With this in mind, FIRE is thankful for all of those who spoke out over the October 2021 disinvitation of geophysicist Dorian Abbot at MIT. Their advocacy in defense of freedom of expression had a much greater ripple effect than expected.

The fallout from Abbot’s disinvitation has proven to be a rallying cry for free speech advocates determined to re-invigorate free expression in Cambridge. And it has — rightfully — given MIT’s leadership pause: After Abbot’s appearance was canceled, MIT President L. Rafael Reif said, “[T]here is no doubt that this matter has caused many people inside and outside our community to question the institute’s commitment to free expression. Some report feeling that certain topics are now off limits at MIT.”

Reif’s statement was, and remains, correct. When Sally Kornbluth begins her tenure as MIT’s 18th president on January 1, 2023, she will have her hands full.

When an institution’s commitment to expressive freedom falters, it signals to faculty and students that administrators can’t be counted on when the going gets tough. 

FIRE’s 2022 College Free Speech Rankings found that over 40% of MIT students do not believe it is likely that the MIT administration will defend the rights of a controversial speaker, and soon-to-be-released faculty survey data indicate that 40% of MIT faculty are more likely to self-censor now than before the start of 2020. By comparison, only 5% are less likely to self-censor. When an institution’s commitment to expressive freedom falters, it signals to faculty and students that administrators can’t be counted on when the going gets tough. 

In response to Abbot’s cancellation, MIT faculty started a petition to convince the administration to endorse the “Chicago Statement.” Alumni created the MIT Free Speech Alliance, an independent organization to promote free expression at the institute. Some trustees began reaching out to learn about ways to promote free expression on campus, and President Reif established a special Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression tasked with revising and updating the school’s statements regarding academic freedom, freedom of expression, and pluralism. 

A single disinvitation galvanized an entire community in support of the basic principles of American higher education.

Fast forward to around nine months after the cancellation of professor Abbot’s lecture, the working group released a draft of the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom as well as their final report. The MIT Statement was then put before the faculty senate tasked to vote on its adoption. On December 21, after a few rounds of debate over modest amendments, the MIT faculty reportedly voted by a 2-1 margin to formally adopt the slightly amended statement. MIT philosophy professor Alex Byrne broke the news via Twitter: “It took a while, and (of course!) we had to do it our way, but the MIT faculty have just voted to adopt a statement on free expression.”

The statement begins by acknowledging MIT’s history and the role “free and objective inquiry” plays on campus:

With a tradition of celebrating provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, MIT unequivocally endorses the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom.

The efforts made by the Working Group on Free Expression, alumni, and faculty advocates at MIT are positioning the institute to rebound and step up as a leader in free expression and academic freedom. These tools for progress will rightfully serve an institution dedicated to advancing human knowledge in the “sciences, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.” 

The final statement articulates limited exceptions to freedom of expression and academic freedom: 

MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment. Moreover, the time, place, and manner of protected expression, including organized protests, may be restrained so as not to disrupt the essential activities of the Institute.

The specificity of this statement protects these exceptions from misinterpretation and protects free expression for the whole campus community. Moreover, though MIT is not bound by the Constitution (which does not restrict private institutions like MIT), its statement correctly acknowledges that when the institute commits itself to freedom of expression, our understanding of the First Amendment illuminates the path forward. 

Throughout the statement, MIT affirms that the best response to speech one deems offensive or incorrect is more speech, not censorship. FIRE wholeheartedly agrees with this approach and has developed freshman orientation programming that can be implemented by colleges to teach this important lesson to students the minute they step foot on campus. 

MIT challenges the current trend of campus censorship and embraces a braver and better alternative in the form of free inquiry: 

A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.

These lines specifically address potential crises similar to the Dorian Abbot disinvitation and recant MIT’s previous decisions to avoid unpopular speech. Through this provision, MIT chooses to foster pluralism and allows a wide range of ideas to compete on campus. 

The incoming president has the opportunity to start her administration on a high note by listening to the desires of students, faculty, and staff, guaranteeing that MIT protects their freedom to speak, teach, and learn.

FIRE applauds these achievements by MIT faculty, but the work is far from over. As the executive director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, and former FIRE staff member, Peter Bonilla, notes: “It takes more than the passage of a strong statement to shore up an institution’s culture of free expression.” 

The incoming president has the opportunity to start her administration on a high note by listening to the desires of students, faculty, and staff, guaranteeing that MIT protects their freedom to speak, teach, and learn.

FIRE urges Kornbluth to follow the faculty’s lead and formally adopt the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom as the guiding principle behind her administration. This is the final step in a long chain of much-needed reform. When students and faculty see the leaders of their schools publicly pledge to protect free expression, they feel more secure to speak their minds. That also sets an important expectation for prospective students: Come to campus ready to participate in a free exchange of ideas. 

FIRE’s doors are always open if Kornbluth wishes to discuss the benefits of presidential actions to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom.