Last Monday, October 17, the first of three scheduled meetings regarding Carnegie Mellon's Controversial Speaker Policy took place in McConomy Auditorium. Currently, a committee of 13 Carnegie Mellon staff, faculty, and students is considering what changes should be made, if any, to the Controversial Speaker Policy in response to concerns regarding some lecturers from the 2004-2005 academic year. The next meeting is on Tuesday, November 1, at 5:00 p.m. in the Peter-Wright-McKenna rooms. The third meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 10, at 5:00 p.m. in McConomy Auditorium. A full-text copy of Carnegie Mellon University Policy on Free Speech and Assembly and Controversial Speakers can be found here.

This past week's discussion was facilitated by William Brown, MCS faculty member and chair of the controversial speaker policy committee, and Associate Vice President Michael Murphy. Although only approximately 20 University community members attended the first meeting, it was clear that the debate over whether to change the policy was important to many of those attendees. Much of the discussion revolved around the ideal of free speech and how some past lecturers did not respect the feelings of students.

"I feel very strongly about this issue," said CIT faculty member James Hoburg, who opened up debate with a prepared discourse staunchly supporting freedom of speech. "I think this policy is extremely well-written and I hope you don't change it at all."

"I think it's terribly important for the university to have this variety [of opinions]," agreed MCS faculty member Lincoln Wolfenstein. Wolfenstein went on to say that the University has both external and internal pressures to restrict controversial views, and that now is a good time to "reaffirm resistance to all these kinds of pressures."

CFA senior Elizabeth Buckser looked at the issue from a different angle. "It's about the safety of students," she argued. "Students can't hear if they fear for their safety." Buckser referred to how some students felt threatened by the words of Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney and leader of the New Black Panther Party, who made ethnically prejudiced comments during his lecture at Carnegie Mellon last semester.

"I think there's a fine line between making sure the students are safe and limiting what a speaker can say," said SCS first-year Justin Brown, hitting the crux of the argument.

Some of the debate also spoke directly to the content of the controversial lectures.

"We don't want to encourage people to become racist," said CIT/MCS senior David Levitt, referring to spring 2005 speakers who, according to Levitt, said particularly hateful things about Jewish people.

"You have to put faith in the student to make their own decision," said HSS senior Darbi Roberts. "The role of the university… is to equip them to make the right decision."

"I think we're in danger," said Hoburg, worry evident in his tone. "There's a big segment of public opinion [on and off campus] who want to limit what people can hear."

The role of the University in hosting controversial speakers on campus was also questioned.

"When hate speech is allowed and given a venue on campus… they're legitimizing the voice," said architecture junior Hannah Levine. "Do we have to provide them with a venue to speak?"

"The fact that someone's been brought to a university doesn't make them legit," replied HSS junior Patrick Malatack.

"You can't talk about legitimacy of speakers because that's totally subjective," added Justin Brown.

William Brown and Murphy tried to guide and add to discussion as it went on.

"Does the university have an obligation to have balance in speakers?" asked Murphy. Although much of the discussion was about speakers such as Shabazz and Norman Finkelstein, who has written books with anti-Israel sentiments, Murphy added that in the fall of 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, and liberal filmmaker Michael Moore all came to speak on campus without any equally large venue provided for a conservative speaker. Murphy also mentioned that the University did extend an invitation to the Bush campaign to come to campus, but the offer was not accepted.

"I think there's an obligation on the part of the university to show both sides of the story," replied Buckser.

Often, discussion became contained to two or three students bouncing opinions off of each other.

"I want to be exposed to things I disagree with and things I fear in a safe environment," said CIT senior Jacob Thomas.

"But what happens when it no longer makes the university a safe environment?" Levitt countered.

At the upcoming meetings in November, the issues of freedom of speech and students' feelings of safety and community support will likely come up again.

"This policy is a beautiful statement of the pain that can come from free speech," said Murphy. "I think it's a good time to think about what we really believe in."

In addition to attending the meetings, committee members encourage those interested in their work and the controversial speaker policy to contact them: MCS professor and committee chair William Brown, Associate Vice President Michael Murphy, CFA professor Omer Akin, CFA professor Susanne Slavick, HSS professor Scott Sandage, CIT professor Edward Rubin, Assistant General Counsel James Mercolini, Assistant Vice President Barbara Smith, CIT senior Nicolette Louissaint, Heinz graduate student Xue Bai, CIT senior Nicholas Scocozzo, MCS graduate student Delia-Laura Popescu, and Daniel Gilman, Carnegie Mellon alumnus and City Council staff member.

 talkback to the pulse