What The Cavalier Daily can learn from John Stuart Mill

Paper published in the New York City College Undergraduate Law Review

On November 7th, 2022, The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, featured an article authored by its editorial board titled Dangerous Rhetoric is not Entitled to a Platform. The crux of the article centred on the University's perceived failure in adequately shielding students from “dangerous” right-wing speakers by granting them the platform to speak on campus. Ironically, this line of reasoning itself poses extreme danger, as it advocates a philosophy that, as John Stuart Mill writes in his essay On Liberty, risks turning society into a “stagnant pool.”  

Using Mill’s argument as a foundation, it is clear to see that the article is fundamentally misguided. To analyse the editorial board's misbelief, it's crucial to first acknowledge the differences between the opinions presented in the article and those advocated by Mill. Furthermore, it's important to consider how Mill and his followers might address the criticisms raised in the article. To do this, I have identified two key disparities between these perspectives: their contrasting views on the inherent value of speech, especially for what constitutes "false" speech, and their divergent analyses of the concept of "harm." Utilising these two disagreements, it becomes evident that the article lacks a comprehensive understanding of the foundational reasons behind the establishment of free speech rights.

Mill values speech irrespective of its truth, falsehood, or the spectrum in between—a viewpoint not shared by the editorial board. The board classifies speech designated by them as “homophobia,” “transphobia,” and/or “racism" as intrinsically false concepts devoid of societal value. Any potential value attributed to this speech, if acknowledged at all, is deemed minimal, eclipsed by the perceived threat of violence associated with certain forms of “hate speech.” In contrast, Mill assigns significantly more societal merit to false or partially false opinions. He proclaims that knowledge actually arises through the “collision [of truth] with error” and freedom of speech can significantly aid the pursuit of truth. He emphasises that while formulating counter-arguments against false opinions, we inherently fortify the validity of true ones. If endorsing Black Lives Matter (BLM) and LGBTQ initiatives on campus is indeed aligned with the right course of action, engaging with individuals such as Mike Pence and Erika Bachiochi should, theoretically, fortify people's conviction in the validity of those actions. The rationale behind this lies in the expectation that such interaction would challenge these figures to produce compelling arguments countering these initiatives, thereby reinforcing the truth and righteousness of supporting these causes if they fail to do so. Additionally, Mill warns that almost all opinions mix falsehood and truth, including traces of both within them. These opinions are important as the concealed elements of truth can enrich our collective understanding. Pence's fervently conservative evangelical ideology may be flawed. However, Mill prompts us to seek the possible underlying foundational truths that contribute to his worldview. In doing so, we embrace an opportunity to uncover previously unrecognised truths, nestled within perspectives we might have otherwise dismissed. Mill also underscores the fallibility of human judgement, highlighting that our determinations of truth and falsehood are equally subject to scrutiny. What the editorial board labels as false may well be perceived as truth by others. For example, the organisation of Black Lives Matter was long regarded as a crucial element in the racial justice movement, as highlighted in the article. However, subsequent instances of embezzlement and ideological scandals have led to various leaders on multiple fronts denouncing the group, casting it in a negative light. This just goes to show that, as Mill postulated, institutions can never definitively ascertain which opinions hold true value, perpetually leaving this determination in flux.

The article also has a very different analysis of what is considered “violence” or “harm” when compared to Mill. Their fundamental disagreement can be found in one key sentence from the editorial board: “Hateful rhetoric is violent — and this is impermissible.” To the article’s writers, speech can be equated with violence, while the philosopher would likely dismiss any censorship unless it directly advocates for a physical threat. Barring these instances, all speech, even if deemed “offencive,” deserves protection according to Mill. This arises from the premise that, in the absence of an immediate threat, the utility of allowing speech supersedes the utility of censoring it. While speech may cause mental or moral discomfort, the repercussions of society arbitrarily censoring speech, inevitably in favour of the powerful or the majority, outweigh these discomforts. Censorship stifles the pursuit of truth for the benefit of these specific groups, hindering societal progress by limiting the evaluation and addition of diverse opinions to our collective knowledge. Consider again the case of Black Lives Matter: if all critical or seemingly "racist" remarks about the movement were censored, as advocated by the editorial board, crucial revelations about financial issues or radicalism within its leadership would never have reached the public eye. This example vividly illustrates Mill's whole argument: while moral and mental discomfort may result from speech, it pales in comparison to the detrimental consequences of selective censorship and the absence of free speech rights.

Clearly, the article falls short in critiquing Mill's advocacy for free speech and I believe that Mill's arguments excellently advocate for this indispensable right. Nevertheless, it's crucial to acknowledge the far more comprehensive and nuanced criticisms that have been directed at Mill's arguments—critiques that the article overlooks but are essential to consider in upholding a dedication to Mill's principles of free speech. For instance, some contend that truth holds less significance than portrayed by Mill, or in some extreme cases, assert that truth may not exist at all. But this doesn’t actually defeat Mill’s argument. Reframing Mill's notion of truth as synonymous with "progress" maintains the essence of his argument. Even if objective truth remains elusive, individuals hold their distinct perspectives on which policy outcomes are more philosophically favourable, even if these views differ from one another. Constraining free speech impedes our societal progress; by curbing criticisms of laws and regulations, we limit our ability to explore possibilities for improvement, even if it isn’t “truth.” Moreover, it's essential to ponder the prospect of a safe "middle-ground" for free speech, one that strikes a balance between avoiding offence and preserving valuable discourse. But granting institutions the authority to censor inevitably leads to them silencing anything that doesn't align with their interests, all under the pretext of curbing "offence." It's a binary scenario: either we uphold free speech in its entirety or we relinquish it altogether. Hence, Mill's advocacy for free speech, and consequently his critique of the arguments presented in the article, remains profoundly significant, urging us to safeguard this invaluable principle.

The Cavalier Daily’s editorial board’s article, Dangerous Rhetoric is not Entitled to a Platform, starkly contrasts with John Stuart Mill's advocacy for free speech. Despite the article’s perspective and other modern criticisms of Mill’s work, his incorporation of arguments centering on the importance of false and partially true opinions, alongside the inherent fallibility of human judgement in determining what merits censorship, as well as the superior value of free speech over individual comfort, serves as a compelling testament to why free speech stands as a fundamental and significant right—one that warrants steadfast protection.