Celebration of Academic Excellence

Remarks by Chancellor Richard Herman
February 20, 2007

In 1911, the author and literary critic Stuart Pratt Sherman penned these words about his work at the University of Illinois:

“Here you are in the great heart of the country,” he wrote. “Here is the place to feel the pulse of real people beat. Here is the place to study and create real American literature!”

That is precisely what English Professor Richard Powers has done with his latest work of fiction, “The Echo Maker,” which recently received the National Book Award. In this extraordinary novel, Richard not only feels the pulse of the Heartland, he feeds our hearts and minds with the richness of his imagination.

Here in the great heart of the country, Professor Carl Woese and his colleagues at the Institute for Genomic Biology are unraveling the mysteries of life. Carl’s lifetime achievements were honored last year when he was inducted into the world’s oldest scientific academy, the Royal Society.

Carl, Richard, and each member of our University family being recognized tonight— your work brings honor to Illinois. Congratulations.
                                                                                           
When Professor Isabel Bevier traveled to Illinois more than a century ago, she discovered here, on the vast and boundless prairie of Illinois, an openness, not only of space, but also of the mind. Because of this open-mindedness, scholars and students at Illinois have been encouraged to explore new ideas, to take risks, and to learn through trial and error. Some of the most powerful ideas of the 20th century were born here, on this windswept campus in the great heart of the country.  

In past years, when I have been privileged to speak at this event, I have celebrated this open-minded environment and the creativity, excellence and innovation it has inspired.  

But tonight I stand before you in a plaintive way. I am saddened by several racist incidents that occurred on our campus this academic year—one in which students were threatened on the Web site, Facebook, because of their points of view about the Chief. And another in which fraternity and sorority members attended a party dressed as gardeners and pregnant women and said they were illegal Mexican immigrants.

These incidents were repugnant to me and to our University community.

But these episodes also create an opportunity to begin a necessary conversation about the balance we must find between free expression and incivility. Never before has our
open-mindedness been more important.

Of course, our campus is not alone in trying to navigate the appropriately nebulous space between free speech and civil society. Controversy has erupted at universities across the nation over culturally insensitive “theme parties,” editorials and cartoons in college newspapers, and hateful speech posted on Web sites and distributed through emails.

Conflict has arisen over outspoken faculty members and visiting speakers who expressed objectionable viewpoints. And debate has revolved around faculty members’ freedom to pursue and publish controversial research and art. 

In each of these cases and hundreds of others that don’t make headlines, I believe faculty and staff have an obligation to teach students the lessons of responsibility that accompany freedom.

Some might ask whether any speech should be off limits on a college campus. My answer is absolutely. Terrorist threats, sexual harassment, child pornography. These kinds of speech are not constitutionally protected off campus and they should not be permitted on campus either.

But what should the University do about words that hurt, or that could lead to someone getting hurt? Where should Illinois, a public university bound by federal and state constitutions—draw the line on speech? And who draws it?

Do we draw the line when an incendiary faculty member, such as Colorado professor Ward Churchill, claims those who perished in the World Trade Center attacks were not innocent victims, but “little Eichmanns?”

Or when students step on Hezbollah and Hamas flags that say the word “Allah” during an anti-terrorism rally—an event that now is being investigated by San Francisco State University?

Should we prohibit students from using our computers or computer labs to send messages deemed “intolerant” or “hateful”—a new policy recently adopted by Northeastern University in Boston? Or ban “actions of incivility,” as San Francisco State has done?

Former University of Pennsylvania President Sheldon Hackney ultimately came to this conclusion about rules that restrict speech on college campuses. He writes, “Even though civility is very important in an educational setting, it is a mistake to try to enforce it among members of the campus community through rules and penalties administered through a judicial system.”

I’m not sure Sheldon Hackney is right. But his answer begs the question: How do we ensure that every one of us here—students, faculty and staff—is provided an environment in which they can succeed at the highest level?

I believe we must create an educational environment that is safe and conducive to learning, ensuring that no members of our University community are subjected to harassment or discrimination. This is not just a requirement of federal law. It is our ethical and moral obligation as leaders to promote the values of respect, tolerance, and inclusiveness on campus.

We can never tolerate or excuse speech that incites violence toward a group of people or that advocates the destruction of another’s property because of his or her race. Personal attacks based solely on a person’s ethnicity are morally wrong and should be condemned.

When speech crosses the line—when it no longer involves the free and open exchange of ideas and devolves into threats of violence—we have an obligation to investigate, but we must do so with open minds.

The News-Gazette recently criticized me for requesting a criminal investigation in the Facebook incident. I had to scratch my head at this because I wondered what they would have said if I had not asked for the investigation and violence had come to the Native American student who was threatened with a tomahawk. Or to the Chief, whose safety also was threatened on a Facebook Web site.

By the way, there is also a Facebook site called, “Throw a Tomahawk in Chancellor Herman’s Face.” Do I feel my safety is being threatened?  No, not really.

But when it comes to the safety of our students, it is our obligation to ensure no “clear and present danger” exists when threatening words are used.  We must be vigilant against speech that threatens violence. Yet we must be just as vigilant against rules that squelch the free flow of ideas and opinions. We must nurture an environment in which students feel free to present radical ideas, to take risks, to explore the far reaches of what is considered advisable.

I know that the kind of excellence that is represented here tonight is a result of your willingness to take risks, to engage ambiguity and sometimes, to research, publish and proclaim unpopular ideas.

As we seek to find the balance between personal and academic freedom and a respectful campus, I believe we must all listen closely to one another. And continually ask, what can each of us do to make this a better place for all?

Events such as the Racism, Power and Privilege forum held February 1st are a good start. Even though it was criticized as being one-sided, this event and others like it give voice to different points of view. We are better for them.

We can make this a better place for all by debating questions about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in the press, on blogs and Web sites, and in dorm rooms and coffee shops across campus.

But the most important place for this conversation is the classroom.  And not just those in the realm of political science or philosophy or cultural studies. But all classrooms.

In the classroom proper, and in the larger classroom that is our campus, students should explore their own thoughts, hear those of others, and debate vigorously, but respectfully, the merits of different arguments.

Whether the debate is about global warming or the ethics of bioengineering or the publishing of an offensive cartoon in the Daily Illini, the classroom is where students can learn to think critically and to debate thoughtfully, respectfully and productively.

At Illinois, we must encourage an atmosphere in which free speech and academic freedom are sacred, because it is this openness that encourages further exploration. Yet, we are also a community, and a training ground for life in the real world.

Our students will soon work in a global economy in which they will need to communicate with people from cultures around the world. I hope that at Illinois, they will learn to be open-minded about the values, traditions and opinions of people from other cultures and to respect the liberty and human rights of all people.

I suspect that as we become an even more global community, the American version of free speech will become increasingly challenged. Many industrialized countries—Spain, Italy, New Zealand, to name a few—have outlawed groups that defame people on
racial grounds.

This is a very different interpretation of free speech than in America, where we defend the right of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party to demonstrate and speak freely, even though most of us consider their messages utterly vile. As a Jew, I found the Nazi’s plan to march in Skokie, Illinois, abhorrent. But I still supported their right to demonstrate.

The challenge is to remember that the rights that protect all of us to say unpopular things are the same rights that protect others. Those who love and hate the Chief both have the right to speak their conscience, and have done so on this campus for years. And though some people will inevitably be disappointed when a decision is made on a controversial question, it is passionate, yet peaceful, debate from both sides that allows us to eventually reach a conclusion, if not a consensus. This is how change occurs in our country.

I have sometimes been told that university students arriving on campus should not be exposed to words they find personally offensive. I disagree. Students will hear words that offend them, if not on campus, then certainly on television. And, if not in their college years, then certainly later.  Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly, Carlos Mencia, or a political ad, passionate debate that offends punctuates American democracy.

I know that many in our University community—Muslims and non-Muslims alike— were offended by the political cartoon of Muhammad that ran in the Daily Illini last fall. Though I did not agree with the student editor’s decision to run the cartoon, I will always support the right of the press to publish material that some deem offensive, as long as it does not violate community standards for decency.

As I said after the cartoon ran—in the presence of offensive speech, people must know that the acceptable response is more free speech. We are free to say, “That offends me.” In fact, we have an obligation to do so.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the Supreme Court, passionately defended the rights of Americans to utter offensive words, even though he himself had been the victim of anti-Semitic speech.

In a 1927 opinion, Brandeis wrote these eloquent words: "Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties… They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”

It is from free debate that public opinion, public policy and even truth emerge. This is, perhaps, the most important lesson our faculty can teach our students.  It is the best lesson America has to offer the world.  In a democracy, all ideas are on the table and, over time, the best ideas will win out.

Again, it is my privilege to welcome you here tonight and to congratulate you, our leading faculty, for your truly exceptional contributions to our University and to the broader society we serve. And now, it is my pleasure to introduce Dean Richard Wheeler, who will announce tonight’s honorees.

Thank you.