The letter articulates our crisis of free speech

The argument

Harper’s letter seeks to protect “the lifeblood of a liberal society” through calls of maintaining “the free exchange of information and ideas”. In fact, the outcry from the letter indicates the need to review and debate the value of free speech. There were more than 150 artists and writers who cosigned the letter. Of the many who signed, a handful had more extreme ideas or more controversial careers. Upon hearing of these dubious signers, the public quickly rendered the whole letter as such by association, pressuring other signers to apologize for their signatures. The fact that the entire argument posed in Harper's could be "canceled" by pointing out the pasts of a few individuals who signed indicates the very issue they were trying to point out. There is a myriad of evidence indicating rapid censorship, but most fascinating is the state of US Universities, institutions who should be safe havens of expression and free thought. The William F Buckley Jr. Program at Yale found that “Almost half (49%) of US college students [felt] “intimidated” by professors when sharing differing beliefs, 72% say their college or university should be doing more to promote diversity of opinions in the classroom and on campus, [and] almost One-Third (32%) misidentify [the] First Amendment". The signers of Harper’s Letter were not only airing their own grievances with the free speech crisis, but they were also speaking on behalf of up-and-coming minds and think tanks: college undergraduates. Colleges are where individuals explore intellectual curiosity and themselves. Yet, many students feel increasingly uncomfortable sharing their unique opinions and thoughts, countering the very purpose of higher education and further proving there has been an assault on free speech. This was rightfully pointed out in the Harper’s letter.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Association can certainly delegitimize an argument. For example, you would not accept a medical diagnosis from a Physics teacher but would from a doctor because the doctor is qualified to give a diagnosis. In the same way, the backgrounds and reputations of the signatories delegitimize the letter.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Quoting the letter's statement of purpose establishes what it claimed to be doing, not whether the crisis it names exists. The premise reports the letter rather than supporting it. [Rejecting P2] This describes a reaction to the letter, and a reaction is not evidence of the phenomenon the letter alleged. Criticism of a document and pressure on individuals are also different things, run together here — as the counter-argument notes, scrutinising who is making an argument is itself a normal part of public debate. [Rejecting P3] The Yale survey is the only empirical support offered and it will not carry the conclusion. Students reporting that they feel intimidated is self-reported discomfort rather than censorship; the 72% who want more viewpoint diversity are expressing a preference, not reporting suppression; and the misidentification figure concerns civics knowledge, not speech. The survey also comes from a programme founded to advance a particular account of campus speech, and no independent corroboration is offered.