Free Speech Comes at a Cost

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in 2012. Photo by Mike Morbeck.

When the University of Chicago (UChicago) published its letter against safe spaces and “trigger warnings,” conservative commentators from Fox News, Breitbart and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze applauded the move as a victory against the destructive wave of political correctness devastating college campuses.

Assuming the letter was not an attempt to coddle alumni and donors alarmed at the protest-heavy college culture, UChicago should be praised for preserving free speech and expression. In what is now a standard message to the “entitled and protected youth,” the university bluntly told students to “grow thicker skin.”

Cue Colin Kaepernick.

The 49ers quarterback’s refusal to stand for the national anthem in protest of the unequal treatment of African-Americans drew accusations from other players, such as former teammate Alex Boone, of being disrespectful to men and women in service.

Commentators said that he was being a traitor to his country. On twitter, some fans quickly resorted to ethnic slurs. Speaking to Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman anonymously, NFL executives said that he may never play pro-football again.

I thought playing sports gave athletes calluses.

The nationalistic and deaf reaction to Kaepernick’s protest is a signal that, UChicago’s idealistic move to remove safe spaces in an effort to create an open environment where discussion can flourish, is not only foolish but impossible.

Kaepernick’s actions created a debate, but not the kind that he intended. The country has questioned his patriotism with McCarthy-like obsession while almost completely ignoring the point of his protest: the unjust treatment of African-Americans across the country.

This demonstrates a flaw in UChicago’s logic: In a fully open discussion, we will eventually regress on our own preferences and ignore other points. Therefore, a degree of protection is needed to facilitate a productive and critical conversation.

Granted, free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, just as protections do not mean complete censorship in the name of political correctness. However, the deep polarization of our cultural, social and political views presents new risks and forms of censorship.

Do Kaepernick’s actions deserve special attention because they stepped on the sanctity of a national symbol?

They shouldn’t.

There are currently no laws that mandate standing for the national anthem, and based on the precedence of other court cases, there is little chance of there being so.

NFL policy also does not require players to stand for the anthem.

Was his decision in poor taste? Perhaps.

The same was said about Black Lives Matters protesters marching during a rush hour traffic stop. Or Olympic athletes raising a black fisted glove on the medal podium at the Olympics. Or of sit-in protesters at whites-only restaurants.

If the University of Chicago is serious about challenging perspectives, it needs to accept that its own constructive and open dialogue is a mere fantasy. Free speech has always come at a cost, but without intervention, it is unaffordable.

(Visited 53 times, 1 visits today)

3 thoughts on “Free Speech Comes at a Cost”

  1. While I appreciate Matt Boey’s attempt to rehash the conflict between political correctness and freedom of speech by stringing together three of the most buzzed-about current events regarding this issue, I question whether or not his vague sources (e.g., “commenters,” “fans,” and “anonymous” responses from “NFL executives to Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman”) are specific and reliable enough to give this article the strength and merit Boey seems to desire.

    Additionally, I’m left feeling a little lost and barraged by conflicting statements…where does this article stand? Does it condone UChicago and condemn critics of Kaepernick? The second paragraph would suggest so, telling readers that we should “praise [it] for preserving free speech and expression,” yet Boey’s closing paragraph seems to dismiss UChicago’s actions, calling open dialogue “fantasy” and freedom of speech “unaffordable.”

    The opinion of this article is as murky as its anonymous sources (at least in the mind of this reader).

    1. Hello Sarah,

      I do appreciate your feedback. In terms of my sources, there were many fans such as @JamesERustle tweeting, “Hope you tear your acl next game stupid n—“. Or @JoshNicholson saying “Get out of the country then you stupid f— n—-.” You’re welcome to look through the tweets sent at Kaepernick’s Twitter account for further examples.

      Commentators do include the seven NFL executives who spoke to Mike Freeman and other sports figures such as Jerry Rice, NFL analyst Rodney Harrison and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. As for the anonymity of the seven anonymous NFL executives who spoke on the issue, that does rely on Mike Freeman who I believe is a trustworthy reporter.

      If I make it seem that I am ambivalent, its because I am. The University of Chicago does have a history of preserving free speech and expression, and I applaud it for those efforts. However, I also want to acknowledge that due to our very polarized cultural and political climate, that type of open environment may not be possible anymore.

      Always open to further comments,


  2. “However, I also want to acknowledge that due to our very polarized cultural and political climate, that type of open environment may not be possible anymore.”

    That point needs a tremendous amount of qualification. It seems to imply that things have never been this bad, and that when things get bad speech should be restricted-which doesn’t follow.

    I find the below story eliminating on this issue.

    “Dr. Samuel Johnson, the author of the first great dictionary of English language. When it was complete he was waited upon by various delegations of people to congratulate him, also by a delegation of respectable ladies of London. Dr Johnson, they said: “we are delighted to find that you’ve not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary.”

    “Ladies, said dr Johnson, “I can congratulate you on being able to look them up.”

    People will go to the greatest lengths to feel offended and it is the most offensive opinions which need the greatest protection.

    Thank-you for writing this article this issue deserves attention and I am glad you are giving it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next Story