Chancellor Andrew Martin talks with Jerusalem professor Barak and Washington University professor Lee Epstein (Bri Nitsberg | Student Life).

Chancellor Andrew Martin moderated a conversation on freedom of speech between Hebrew University in Jerusalem professor Barak Medina and Washington University professor Lee Epstein in Umrath Lounge, Sept. 3. Attendees filled the 130 seats, with roughly another 60 standing in order to watch. 

This event, which Martin said was conceptualized this spring, comes during the still-ongoing Israel-Hamas war and related nation-wide college protests, where freedom of speech has become a central issue.

Medina explained that the protection of freedom of speech should be “much stricter” during times of war, when governments tend to engage in “unjustifiable speech-limiting.” However, according to Epstein, this ideology is not readily followed by judges in the U.S.

“The data tells us that [judges] are more inclined to suppress free speech [during times of war], and it’s pretty stark,” Epstein said.

During the audience Q&A at the end of the talk, Martin added more context to this idea that free speech is not evenly protected. 

“The social science is pretty clear…people value free speech differently depending on who the speaker is,” Martin said.

Epstein listed six recently occurring situations that illustrate how protecting freedom of speech can become complicated. These included white supremacists wanting to speak on-campus, professors refusing to use a student’s gender identity in the name of free speech, and highly politicized, unapproved graduation speeches.

Israel, and much of Europe, might have quicker answers to some of these questions. They adhere, according to Medina, to Article 20 of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights, which states that advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination is prohibited by law. Further, Medina, while acknowledging there may not be one right answer, theorized why Israel and the U.S. are different in this case.

“You must take into account the history,” Medina explained, “The American experience is that of abuse of power by government in [the] context of preventing speech…the Europeans have their experience [with] the outcomes of propaganda, incitement, racism, and things like that, and then they prefer a different view.”

This direct, cross-cultural comparison was very interesting for attendees like Arye Nehorai, a former faculty member at WashU. 

“The most interesting [thing] for me was getting the broad view-comparisons of the U.S., Europe, and Israel,” Nehorai said. “The fact they were able to exactly pinpoint good examples of differences and similarities was very illuminating. You don’t usually get such comparisons.”

Medina also stated that educational measures could be taken instead of legal ones. However, despite Israel being currently wracked with levels of demonstration Medina described as “hard to imagine,” Israel’s educational facilities have not followed suit.

“The fact that [university] campuses [in Israel] are relatively quiet disturbs me,” Medina said. “Some [students] believe the solution is to bring an end to the Jewish state, or things like that, but they prefer not to express it.”

Medina described how this past Monday, all universities in Israel went on strike to call for a ceasefire. Martin said that here in the U.S., a university has a “collective responsibility” to maintain a learning environment with rigorous debate.

“Universities have a responsibility to provide an environment where students can learn and faculty can write and think,” Martin said, “I also think that responsibility belongs not just to the chancellor or administration, [but] to every single member of the academic community. I’m proud of the way this community has pulled together through some very, very difficult times.”

To Medina, it is important that universities be a place to harbor a variety of different opinions and perspectives, even if these differing opinions are not always popular.

“I think [the quietness] is an even worse outcome [than] if they express their views and create this anger and resentment among the majority,” Medina said, “Our responsibility now is to make sure people feel safe expressing their views.”

(Bri Nitsberg | Student Life)

Although there were many references to the Israel-Hamas war, some students who attended the event noted that there was no Palestinian representative present. One such student was graduate student Payton Landes.

“I hope to see a similar, analogous event on campus with a Palestinian scholar and staff on campus that [have] worked closely with Palestinian institutions,” Landes said. “I hope to see a balance of perspective.” 

This idea of a “balance of perspective” was emphasized by two anonymous students. They were disappointed by the speakers being “very moderate” and agreeable.

“I feel like all three of them were on the same side,” one said. “I feel like we should have people with different views talking…that would be even more helpful.”

Opinions on WashU’s history with free speech, especially in light of last spring’s protests, are mixed. 

Steve Radinsky, a Jewish St. Louis local with grandchildren at multiple universities — including Columbia University, which made national news due to student encampments — praised Martin’s handling of the Israel-Hamas protests and enjoyed the talk.

“If somebody’s accused of doing hate speech, they should be given a warning, and if they do it again, they should be out,” Radinsky said. “Martin handled it quite well compared to other universities, and I give him a lot of credit for what he did at WashU.”

However, Landes arrived at WashU scared after seeing police force deployed against students as part of the University’s response to the protests.

“I still feel a fearful relationship to the institution of WashU,” Landes said. “And [I] think that the selection of speakers and the curated section of the talk failed to answer the questions I showed up with about how my personal rights on campus, and my peers with similar beliefs, would be treated.”

The ability to express mixed opinions like these on campus can be a point of pride. Professor Epstein told a story of a group of veterans coming to WashU while a protest was taking place, and how she was nervous about what these “esteemed veterans” would think of the University.

“It turned out we worried for not,” Epstein said. “‘That’s why we fought the war!’ the veterans said, ‘so that the students would have space to express their needs.”