From AI to controversial speakers, event examines free speech on campus

As the debate over what constitutes free speech grows on college campuses across the U.S., the School of Law took an evening to celebrate the importance of free speech and ponder the implications without it.

The Feb. 22 event in the Mainstage Theatre in the Center for the Arts on the North Campus included a wide-ranging panel discussion of issues fueling the debate over free speech — from book banning to the war in Gaza, from artificial intelligence to controversial speakers.

The event on Thursday was, in part, a response to controversial speakers on campuses nationwide, which have led to protests and demands that colleges and universities prohibit such appearances. The forum was meant to provide an open discussion about the First Amendment, what it protects and why it’s important.

“Although I have been at UB for only about three months, I can say without hesitation I feel very proud to be at a university where the value of free speech is understood and appreciated,” said Seval Yildirim, vice provost for inclusive excellence.

Sponsored by the Office of Inclusive Excellence and the UB Law Alumni Association's Social Justice and Racial Equity Committee, the event was presented by the Office of Equity and Belonging and the Office of Student Affairs in the law school.

While the evening began with performances, both spoken word and dance, much of the three-hour event was devoted to a discussion among three panelists: Athena Mutua, professor of law and the Floyd H. & Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar in the School of Law; Buffalo Common Council Member Mitchell Nowakowski; and the Rev. Mark Blue, president of the Buffalo Chapter of the NAACP.

Mutua spoke of how free speech is more than just a slogan and used the recent debate over critical race theory as an example.

At first, Mutua said, she did not want to dignify the debate with a response, but more than a year later there were more than 500 proposals, bills and declarations nationwide seeking to ban critical race theory.

“All of a sudden, that speech I had taken for granted meant something quite real,” Mutua said.

“In a moment when those things you take for granted are under attack, then you must act,” she said. “So, free speech to me, in this moment, means lots of speech, more speech and a fight to maintain free speech.”

One of the problems causing this tension over free speech is that people have to learn to listen to each other, Blue said.

“You may not like it, but we all have the right to be heard,” Blue said. “We all have the right to our own opinions.”

Blue, pastor of the Second Baptist Church of Lackawanna, urged people to embrace one another’s differences.

“If you are going to express a viewpoint, make sure you have the correct information to back it up,” Blue said. “Have your facts straight — and don’t entice.”

Law students Serena Brahaspat and Deja Graham served as moderators for the event, which was attended by 40 to 50 people.

When asked how UB can balance upholding free speech while promoting an inclusive campus environment, Nowakowski alluded to the visit last spring by Michael Knowles.

The council member said he understood that UB, as a public institution, could not simply turn away the conservative commentator, who was invited to campus by a student club. But in such cases, the university can provide resources to students who may feel alienated, and space for counter voices to be heard. In fact, Nowakowski and the other panelists thought, overall, UB handled the Knowles visit well.

“Free speech also comes at a cost,” Nowakowski said, “but I always believe the benefits outweigh the negative.”