© Clémentine Mariani.
By Alice Bello
A year ago, I published an article in the Sundial Press about the hypocrisy associated with free speech. In that article, I criticized the tendency of Sciences Po students to veer too quickly into political correctness when subjects such as feminism and politics were concerned. Passionate about journalism, freedom of speech has always been of the utmost importance for me. I’ve used it to defend jokes, journalists, and opposing political views, but the beginning of the school year has made me reconsider what I used to consider so highly, and more importantly, realize how much is at stake when it comes to free speech.
The school year got off to a rocky start when the Ultraviolets, the association in charge of supporting the Euro-American program, released a document containing its chants, in the hopes of teaching them to first year students. Although the chants in the first pages of the document were relatively innocuous, the last pages were sentence upon sentence of racial, national, and historical stereotypes concerning the other Sciences Po campuses. Eventually, the chants were brought to the attention of the administration who had them removed. The UVs then sent out a letter of apology.
Although debates around free speech are nothing new, the UV scandal shed light on how tricky this subject is. Indeed, the Reims campus rapidly divided into two camps: those who saw the removal of the chants as a denial of free speech, while another camp fervently combatted any defense of the contents of these chants and deem it a rule of common decency not to slander human beings.
Solving the debate around free speech could go in two general directions. Firstly, legality could be used as an argument to ban such lyrics. From a legal standpoint, ever since the Law on the Freedom of the Press of July 29th, 1881, French law has assured freedom of the press, minus several proscriptions such as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and ethnicity. Therefore, were the UV lyrics ruled hate speech by a legal authority, then that would be reason enough to have them removed from the songbook.
That being said, on the Reims campus, a number of students aren’t French and consequently don’t have the same vision of freedom of speech. Take the United States for example, where hate speech in the context of free speech isn’t explicitly prohibited. Even if this type of speech isn’t illegal elsewhere, that doesn’t mean we can ignore the ethical aspect of free speech.
The past few weeks have forced me to reconsider the lengths to which I’m willing to defend free speech. No matter how much I rack my brain, I simply can’t fathom there being a simple answer to this dilemma. Indeed, in the context of the UV scandal, we’ve entered a sort of gray zone concerning free speech: both camps can claim the supremacy of their principles, and we cannot ask one or the other to abandon their beliefs.
I’m not writing this article just to point out that there’s a gray zone concerning free speech. No, I’m putting pen to paper to humbly offer an alternative to this impasse. Yes, we have free speech, but is that a reason why we should say everything on our mind?
Last year, I ended my article with a reference to John Stuart Mill who, in his book On Liberty, claims that speech should be free to the extent to which it does not cause actual harm to others. Here, we have a clear case of harm being done, which should be reason enough for us to stop defending these chants. I’m not saying we should veer into the politically correct just yet. I’m not saying we should live in what the French like to call “le monde des bisounours,” but once you’ve had feedback about these chants and how they’ve been emotionally harming members of your own program, campus, and community, it seems difficult to turn a blind eye to that and simply wave around your right to free speech.
We need to be able to look at ourselves critically. I’m not saying this from a moral high ground, far from it. I was quick to defend the UV chants, but I’ve found myself in a situation where the beliefs I once held so close to my heart felt alien to me when I saw them played out in front of me. I’ll say it myself: I can’t relate to the songs that were written by this association years ago. I’ve never been through war, poverty, or anything even close to that. And sure, I may have the right to make light of these subjects, but I don’t want to hurt my fellow man.
We are quick to criticize Sciences Po, but let’s not forget why we’re studying at this university. Not to get ahead of myself, but we are the future diplomats, politicians, United Nations workers, lawyers and teachers of our generation. We are part of associations that fight for equal rights, for the integration of refugees, for education, and for the cohabitation of religions. How can we honestly say that we believe in these causes if we’ll openly disrespect them when we represent our campus? You can do whatever you want in your free time and behind closed doors, but there are a certain number of values that we can’t forget we’re fighting for.
It’s important to fight for what you believe in. It’s also important to know when it’s appropriate to fight for something. We live in a time where paradoxically, the desire to shut down contradictory opinions is adjacent to a multiplication of means to express yourself. Continue to speak your mind, but don’t forget to ask yourself if the amusement gained from expressing yourself is worth the hurt felt on the receiving end.
Alice is the Francophone editor-in-chief of The Sundial Press. Interests include drinking coffee, reading the New York Times, and reading the New York Times while drinking coffee.
