The battle for free speech is always fought on the fringes, with people whose thoughts find scant endorsement. Protecting their rights does an essential public service, because it protects everyone's rights.
At a time when Kapil Sibal's statements on monitoring online content have raised a furore in India, his alma mater Harvard is engaged in free speech issues of its own. Two recent decisions taken by the Harvard University raise pertinent questions relating to the University's ethos of dissemination, debate, and freedom of expression.
The first concerns the decision to exclude Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's courses from the Harvard Summer School course catalogue. The second is the University's decision to close Harvard Yard to outsiders involved in the Occupy movement.
A newspaper op-ed
To begin with, on December 7, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences took the unprecedented step to remove the summer economic courses taught by Mr. Swamy, himself a PhD from Harvard. The decision was based on a controversial op-ed written by him in the newspaper Daily News and Analysis (DNA) on July 16 in response to terrorist attacks in Mumbai. In the op-ed, he had offered strongly worded ideas on how to “negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.” Among his ideas were that India should “enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion,” “remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites,” and “declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus.”
Undoubtedly, the op-ed is execrable in so many ways, starting with cloaking itself with an understanding of social and religious history of India, and making suggestions that would leave a lot of people speechless with outrage just to think of them. Notwithstanding that, however, Harvard ought to stand for Mr. Swamy's freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is probably the most sacred constitutional guarantee of all, and the true test of this sacred right is when someone uttering morally repugnant thoughts exercises it. The U.S. courts have long held that in times like these, there is a need to swallow hard and understand that, in a free society, any restriction on speech or expression must be taken under very serious consideration and pass some very stringent tests regarding public safety, and clear and present danger.
Fred Phelps
To take just one example: recently, a case was brought against Fred Phelps, a pastor, who demonstrated at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq, with signs that said things like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You're going to Hell” because, in his twisted mind, America's war deaths were God's punishment for the U.S. tolerating homosexuality. In the case brought by the dead soldier's father alleging an injury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the U.S. Supreme Court held for Fred Phelps (protecting his right of speech), and against the dead soldier's father by a vote of 8-1.
In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified the notion that underlying the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression are values that transcend what people like Mr. Phelps and Mr. Swamy say — values important to everyone. And when free speech rights are attacked, if one allows the least popular and morally abhorrent people to be deprived of their free speech rights, then it is not long before others are deprived too. Thus the battle for free speech is always fought on the fringes, with people whose thoughts find scant endorsement. Protecting their rights does an essential public service, because it protects everyone's rights.
Examined through the above constitutional lens, Harvard's decision to exclude Mr. Swamy's courses, and thereby effectively oust him from the teaching roster, appears harsh. Also, Harvard has in place strong commitments to free speech in its policies, and this decision violates these policies. The University's “Free Speech Guidelines,” adopted in 1990, state, for example, that “curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular views and others of the right to listen to unpopular views.”
Harvard Yard
Although the subject matter could not be more different, the second decision displays the same oppositional stand of Harvard against a libertarian conception for freedom. It relates to the University's decision to close Harvard Yard to outsiders engaged in the Occupy movement that has erupted all around America.
Harvard Yard is a calm and vibrant community space where students, tourists, and community members sit and stroll. Many buildings, including dormitories, libraries, a church and lecture halls, surround it. In the month of November, tents had sprouted on Harvard Yard in solidarity with the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement at Harvard was made up of Harvard students, staff and faculty, and posed no threat to the security of Harvard affiliates.
However, on the pretext of security, the University ordered a complete lock-down of the campus, thereby depriving outside protestors the basic freedom to have an open conversation on the campus. In doing so, Harvard reinforced institutional exclusivity and elitism — features that the Occupy movements seek to change.
Many professors of Harvard shared this sentiment. Notably, Duncan Kennedy, a Law School professor, wrote an open letter to Harvard President Drew Faust expressing his dissatisfaction with the way the University administration handled the protest. Without a doubt, the decision to close the gates amounts to a violation of the freedom of assembly in the most general sense by saying that Harvard is off limits to those that seek to engage in a public-spirited discussion.
It is bewildering how a peaceful movement in protest against economic inequality would provoke the lock-down of a University that admits students because of their commitment to the democratic values of an open and just society. This, and the decision to rebuke Mr. Swamy, is precisely the sort of action that a university dedicated to intellectual freedom must seek to avoid.
It is central to Harvard's thriving as a centre of excellence that it immediately reassures that freedom of expression will be protected at Harvard. The University must honour its commitment to policies that allow diverse opinions to flourish and to be heard. And who knows in doing so, Harvard might just provide its famous Indian alumnus, who has recently been at the receiving end of a lot of flak, a much-needed free speech message.
(Karan Singh Tyagi, a graduate of Harvard University, is an associate attorney with an international law firm in Paris.)
Keywords: Harvard University, free speech, Subramanian Swamy, Kapil Sibal, Occupy movement
From:M.Ahmed
Good to see Harvard maturing and finally take a decision on hate speech-Swami's is certainly one.It would do even better by expelling one more hate speech professor of law Alan Dershowitz who not only espouses extreme views on Palestinians but in fact falsifies history.
One wonders how guys like Swami,Deshowitz and the writer of the subject article ever made to Harvard.No freshmen should be disappointed if refused admission to this August institution as they make same error of judgement as any other.
Is Hindu posting links from where one can download the points that
Harvard considered while taking the decision?
If Dr.Subramanian swamy is censured on his opinion which suggests a way to eradicate
islamic fundamentalist terrorism, why was MFHussain eulogized for drawing nude
pictures of Hindu gods, godesses in the name of free expression?
Clearly double standards by the media and the anti-hindus!
My suggestion - please be practical and unbiased. Dr.Swamy was just suggesting a way to
root out religious extremist terrorism from India.
In her rant against Dr Swamy, Dr Diana Eck claims that Harvard should not allow demagogues like Dr Swamy in Harvard to teach. This is a ridiculous statement and stands scrutiny as follows.
Dr Swamy is a fine teacher of economics. His two courses in Harvard deal with the economy of India and economics itself. Where is the demagoguery involved? Where has Dr Swamy tried to subvert the honourable and I daresay extremely intelligent students of Harvard to the cause of demagoguery or to the cause of some inter-religious issues in India ? If he has not, then what Dr Swamy considers as a valid course of action in India hardly merits his removal as a visiting Professor to Harvard.
Extending this argument further,it would imply that anyone who is guilty of culpable homicide,imperialism,neo-colonialism i.e. exploitation of cheap labour should not be allowed on the hallowed precincts of Harvard.
Will Harvard,thus,declare all politicians of USA ( some ex-Harvard), persona non grata ?
The entire political,economical,social and technological American enterprise survives on the umbilical cord of free flow of opinions and ideas, any hindrance to such a flow of thoughts would cause irreparable damage to the enterprise. As far as Harvard was concerned it's board was free to take its decision just as Dr.swamy was free to say what he wants.
Diana Eck was the professor who began the movement to drop Swamy from Harvard. Diana Eck was blessed to live in Benares at a young age and then wrote,The City of Light,an excellent book on Benares. She further learned about plurality and tolerance in Benares and went on to establish an Institute for Plurality in her country.She extols Hinduism for its tolerance and claims to have benefited from this exposure to India as a post graduate student at the Banaras Hindu University.
It is astonishing that she led this charge against Dr Swamy. She should have learnt that in Kashi the Muslims raided it and destroyed it many times,but Hinduism never died and the Kashi Vishwanath temple rose like a phoenix from ashes to regain its glory. Kashi teaches us that whatever, you do or whatever you say, if you know your svadharma or your own philosophy nothing can change you. Harvard has the best minds in the world -can Dr Swamy make them zealots? Ridiculous.
Dr Eck's time in India has been a waste.
India is fighting for its identity and even physical existence
continuously under attack by Islamists, Predatory
evangelists,Communists and Maoists.
This is well known and no secret. All of the above have declared their
intent to dominate vociferously, proudly and they strongly believe
that their ideological and faith system enjoins them to conquer and
destroy Hindu Civilization - India's own ancient home grown
path of peace and harmony among peoples of this planet.
Dr. Swamy is deeply anguished about this fatally dangerous situation
as also millions of people like me.
If Dr. Swamy's cry for self defense and call for staying alive in the
face of overt and covert intensifying violence by the aforementioned,
avowedly ANTI-HINDU, is reprehensible in your HARVARD,
I am compelled to infer that it is tantamount to HARVARD institution
joining hands with the predators in their brazen
onslaught on the HINDU civilization - with absolutely no provocation
from the Hindus.
Even though I adore Swamy a lot for his role in earthing out 2g scam and
making efforts to get big fish chidambaram, certainly his OP-ED was
hate-speech rather than free-speech. It is disappointing that such a
scholar like swamy have xenophobic ideas.
It is incredible that this author thinks Dr. Swamy's freedom of speech
has been infringed by Harvard. Dr. Swamy has freely spoken and no state
law has punished him for it. He continues to speech freely. But Harvard
is a private institution, they have a right to have their own freedom of
action, which in anyway does not affect or impinge on DR. Swmay's right
to free speech. Dr. Swamy can continue expressing his his immature
rather ill-thought out views. It is just that Harvard, a private
institution does not want him.
I do not know how good a teacher Swamy was in Harvard. Although he claims, ratings by his students year after year are excellent and that is why he was retained to teach some summer courses for the last several years. I doubt that. Quite often even in Harvard I presume these are managed by massaging contacts. I also do not know why anyone should get perturbed over a simple administrative act of Harvard in deciding to disassociate with him. This in no way curbs his right of speech. He still retains the freedom to uncover the hijab and jiljab of every Muslim in India to find out if their ancestors were Hindus.
Freedom comes with responsibility. That's why even USA is now having a statue of Responsibility built to complement the statue of Liberty. In a country where the Constitution talks about secular values, the OP-ED was really not something which was something a responsible citizen should have written.
Coming to Harvard rejection of Swamy case, even they have a freedom to choose which course they wanted to teach. Harvard was on Swamy side in August when student wanted him out of Harvard. But in a democratic way (you can question if Harvard used it as tactics to first support and then reject Swamy), his course was rejected. If you cannot question the freedom of Swamy , how can we question the freedom of Harvard.
Right/freedom of expression is one thing and right of maligning is different, however after contradistinction of differences Harvard has excluded Mr. Swami.
This well analyzed article exposes the blatant hypocrisy of the Harvard University in snubbing Dr.Swamy. Whereas, Indian Constitution has some restrictions in place to rein in any abuse of Freedom of Speech guaranteed under of clause 2 of article 19 as amended by first Amendment Act 1951, US constitution is more liberal and permits much wider freedom including ‘hate speeches’. Dr. Swamy’s opinion to enact Indian laws to discipline Indian Mujahiddin may sound draconian; but yet, it is just an opinion, aimed at bringing senses to those involved in anti-national activities. An aggressive posture is just a strategy to drive home a point that nationalism should prevail over religious fundamentalism; it cannot be construed as either inciting or discriminating. An Institution of repute, symbolic of American ‘liberty’ to pass strictures on Dr.Swamy, for an opinion expressed, is surprising; it appears to be more hypocritical than genuine logic and merits censure by the knowledgeable.
Why blame this guy for expressing his Opinion? He is not a Journalist? His comments have come in the Op-ed section and that in my opinion is a platform for invited speakers to showcase their views. Swamy expressed his views in the Op-ED column for another news papaer, this guy expresses his in The Hindu. Harvard also excercised their freedom in deciding to scrap Swamy's courses. They do have to freedom to say, I am scrapping the course as I don't agree with Swamy's views. SImilarly they should also accept a harsh treatment metted out to them under the "Free Speech" tag. Also Swamy was not employed by Harvard. He was a guest lecturer (visiting faculty) or whatever you call it. If I decide to invite someone to my house as a guest, then I reserve the right to expell that person also. I am also not obliged to explain any reason for expelling the person as I never had any commitment to invite him in the first place.
There is nothing in the article that says that Harvard's actions have
violated the law. The only implication that can be drawn from the
article is that free speech should be held in high regard by Harvard. MK
Satyam's grasp of the English language appears to be weak, judging by
his comments.
Although Mr. Tyagi has tried to sanitise the hate-article published in the NDA by sugar-coating it; he has failed by his own sheer hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is sacred, but hate-speeches are still regulated even in the free societies. Mr. Tyagi lives and works in the west. I challenge him to write anything anti-semitic. He will either end up with David Irwing or atleast lose his job.
Harvard has exercised its free speech on Subramian Swamy. They have their right to do so. But did they exercise the same right when Saudi Arabia donates? Will the exercise the same right when Israel donates? Or if Russia or Pakistan chooses to donate? Because some of these countries practice what Mr. Swamy only preaches. Would they turn down money from Texas, because of Gov. Perry's opinions? How about the Pope - who equated Atheist to Nazis?
I am not a fan of Swamy, but am a Fan of free speech. But by selecting a target like Mr. Swamy they send a clear message of Hypocracy - We will only target people who do not have money to take a stand. I think Harvard would also be wise to put out the affiliations of people who pushed for the ban - this will show if these people are commited to hate free speech or to money or other considerations.
I wonder if Mr Tyagi (or anyone else for that matter - within or outside the US) would
be questioning Harvard's commitment to free speech had Mr Swamy had made such
disparaging comments about black Americans. Think about it.
“remove the (synagogue) in (some Catholic Church in Nuremburg) and the 300 (Synagogues) at other (Church) sites,” and “declare (Germany) a (Pure Aryan Land) in which (Non-Aryans) can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were (Slaves).” -
Now that I have tweaked Mr. Swami's speach a little bit, does he not sound very much like HITLER would've done in Nazi Germany?
Here is a question for you - TO WHAT EXTENT CAN 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' BE STRETCHED?
Because Mr. Swami's dribble is nothing if not Fascist and discriminatory. Harvard University, as his employer, has the right to dissociate itself from those who do not subscribe to its prescribed moral code?
The bigger question is - should we Indians not act in the same manner?
With the multiplicity of religions and castes, the Indian society faces special challenges compared to the US, although one has to acknowledge the greater strides the latter has made in equal rights given their recent history of slavery, whereas we still struggle with untouchability and religious intolerance. Although Mr. Swamy's angst at the past destruction of temples will resonate with even non-Hindus who believe in cultural ethos of a civilization, he should know better as a historian that history can not be undone as can be seen from the unfortunate adventure in Babri Majid. We can only hope that practitioners of all religions follow the tenets of Kabir, Sai Baba, the Sants and the Sufis to usher in a new Indian civilization as a model for the rest of the world in the 21st century.
Free speech is nothing but an essential corollary to a free human mind, free from all forms of shackles and subjugation. So, let true freedom truly prevail. Mankind always needed it. It needs it now more than ever, even in this modern enlightened era.
Harvard has taken a wonderful decision regarding swamy. Its a truth that, people like swamy promote hatred btw communities, in the name of freedom of speech.
In regard to Kaipil's view on internet content is again question of freedom of expression. Tyagi's same view is applicable as in Fred case Supreme court decision in US. So Google stated what is applicabloe in US that view based decision is viable.Freedom of speech is vital for any man. Like Raja said in 2G scam issue that he gave cell phones at dust cheap rates to common man at the cost of exchequer. You cannot hang Raja for his statement as that is his fundamental right of expression. Expression right has to be seen in that light only you cannot compound with so many 'ifs and buts'. That is where Kapil sibals' is just a decibel not holding things in terms of constitutional right of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is a well thought out principle in a civilized society where all divergent opinions can be there like our Kapil Sibal's. Nothing wrong but preservation of right to speech and expression is indeed sacrosant that way Fred's decision is valid citation here.
Karan Singh Tyagi should understand that there is a visible difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech! If the intent of a speech or article is to incite hatred between people, then no civil society should be expected to encourage it! And.. people should understand that the caste system of Hinduism prompted people to convert. The issue of allowing a low caste Hindu to become a priest in an Indian Hindu temple should have been the crux of Swamy's article, and till that issue is unresolved Hinduism would witness the exodus of its believers.
Excellent and lucid analysis. The actions of the Harvard University indeed raise several disturbing questions. I do not subscribe to the views of Subramaniam Swamy but can hardly deny him the right to express his views. Recall the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire, (Attributed) ...” By initiating actions against Swamy unilaterally the august university is reminding us of the specter of McCarthyism a practice of making accusations without proper regard for hearing the accused. What will be next? Will MIT expel Noam Chomsky for saying of America that “I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system”?
Occupy the yard is a non violent protest. If Harvard yard does not
allow which place can allow such protest.Protest is a mechanism of dis
agreement with a public view professed by government on behalf of
public whether that view really represented public is a debatable
issue. Protest is a mechanism to tell public their problems in a non
violent way. Like Supreme court said by 8 - 1 decision cited in the
article, allowed freedom of expression is fundamental that cannot be
gagged. That is liberal thought of any democracy. Pity is Harvard Yard
closing appears to public it has taken a stand, that is not correct.
Harvard university cannot take a stand as it is a place called a
temple of learning. Learning by mistakes is the place where education
thrives.
Position well represented in Op-Ed article. USA SC decision 8 -1
proves a point, right to express however unpopular the idea may be.
Harvard was started by a puritan pastor. Puritanism is a rebel against
conservative Catholism. But John Harvard is simple person wanted
independence so he came to New England. A freedom loving person.
Liberal education he started and opened portals for girls and to all
religions and communities. He never advocated you shall speak this or
that. That is real freedom. Freedom of expression emanates from a
think. A man thinks a think on an issue. When his think is complete he
expresses that is freedom of expression please. If not accepted
naturally God gave you the capacity to argue it out for and against
that has not taken place in Swamy's case of courses.Just because a few
professors not liked cannot gag Swamy's right to argue his position
with the committee of decision, as the couse has nothing to do with
what he wrote on DNA newspaper. His was justaview
Thank you The Hindu, for an excellent op-ed on a topic which has
been discussed from eternity with no apparent conclusions. The
Harm/Offensive principle which says that when the speech (hate
speech/pornography etc) is in direct violation of other cherished
rights, then such speech should be delimited, but even here there is
no clear interpretation. Finally, this leaves the society or the
state to take the final call in terms of interpreting on what is
"reasonable limitations" on Freedom of Speech. Swamy's article is an
example of hate speech when seen through the lens of existing human
right laws of most liberal societies including India. But should it
be banned? No. Should I disassociate myself with him? Yes. Is
disassociation an act of punishment? No. It is just my freedom of
expression. Thankfully, Harvard's decision was not this simplistic
and only after due deliberation and motions they have taken their
decision.
The article wreaks of hypocrisy. The author states that ..." in his
twisted mind, America's war deaths were God's punishment for the U.S.
tolerating homosexuality". Fred Phelps has a twisted mind because he is
critical of homosexuality! The author needs to have his head examined to
ensure he does not possess a "twisted" mind. And he is preaching on
freedom to speak!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freedom of speech is why so sacred because even the other party uses the
same freedom to reciprocate. So restricting the other person's speech
may also restrict your freedom of speech one day...which would be very
unfortunate and condemnable
Well written, but your grasp over constitutional law is weak. Freedom of speech is
available against state actors. Harvard University is a non-state actor. Please read the
state action doctrine, and clarify to the readers that speech arguments cannot be
made against private educational institutions.
Swamy's words show his belligerent ideas in tackling terrorism. There are many sane people in the country who don't subscribe to his views.But the decision of Harvard university to exclude his courses doesn't augur well for academic freedom which includes debate over controversial ideas.
free speech is certainly a great asset;but preaching the same in the precincts of an educational institution is totally different,and as in the above context the alumnus is very rightly taken to task for misusing the hospitality.
Fred Phelps was not put in prison for carrying offensive signs at a soldier's funeral, but would he have retained his job at Harvard or Columbia or the New York Times? Swamy was not put in prison for hateful speech either. He continues to have his free speech rights. But he has no entitlement to a job at Harvard.
Free speech must of course not be obscene or libelous. But, Speaking truth must not be construed as obscene or libelous. Is it not a fact that many Muslim invaders did destroy Hindu temples and constructed mosques on them? They themselves have written so in many of their own writings. Is it not a fact that Buddha statue was destroyed by Islamic extremists in Afghanistan? These are Historical facts. Now - there are many Islamic Extremists even today - who hold views that doing so is good. When are such people going to leave their extremist ideas on other religions - unless others condemn such thinking in the first place? If Hindus do not condemn untouchability - it will stay forever. If Muslims do not condemn Jihad against other religions, it will stay. If the chief Exorcist of Vatican is not made aware that Yoga is the quintessence of honest living - he will always say that Yoga is devil's work. Speaking Truth - must find support.
The distinguished attorney has expressed his views on the two incidents. Both USA and India gives importance for freedom of expression, but that freedom is subject to reasonable Restrictions as outlined in the RULE BOOKS of the two democratic countries, and the Citizens cannot go against these mandates.Dr.Swamy is a distinguished economist, and he Is expected to set very high standards in the field of teaching. The 40 professors of Harward have no enmity with the indian leader, but they were very anxious to maintain the image of this number one world institution above controversy, realizing the reasonable Restrictions imposed on them and they deserve bouquets for their maturity. No body has Defined reasonable restrictions. It should satisfy the test of reasonableness of the majority Of the populace. I cannot even think of the pandemonium, if it becomes an open house for the entire world in a college. Sorry, MR Thagi.
Please Email the Editor