{shortcode-3ba88b8318b139ce4d52a72ac3a505237a88b984}

The best instance of free speech I’ve observed at Harvard came long ago when I was an undergraduate.

I attended a debate held in Sanders Theatre between conservative William F. Buckley, Jr and liberal John Kenneth Galbraith. They were equal in fame, rhetoric, and wit. Adding to the drama, Buckley was a consummate Yalie, author of “God and Man at Yale”, and Galbraith, the Harvard professor, was author of “The Affluent Society,” with or without God. They disagreed and did so in a classy way one could admire.

In what follows, I will first give a view of free speech you haven’t seen before, one that shows how expression by protest can be harmful to free speech. Then, I will apply that argument to academic freedom, often confused with free speech.

Speech can be defined in three ways: by the best instance, the average instance, or the minimal instance. Lawyers use the third — is it within the law? Social scientists use the second — an average can be counted in surveys. I prefer the first and will show you why.

Usually, discussion of free speech focuses on “free.” I will change the focus to “speech.” Speech has a noble origin in the Greek word logos — reasonable speech or argument. Socrates told his friend Crito to follow the logos when he speaks, not his preferred opinion. From this high aspect, speech means to communicate to a fellow human being with reason. A “reason” is what a fellow human being can appreciate; it is not just your wish or demand.

Unfortunately, we have come to confuse speech with unreasoned expression by gestures and shouts. The decisive step in this confusion took place in the famous Flag Salute case of 1943 (West Virginia vs. Barnette) in which a pledge, an act with words, was interpreted as speech. Although the First Amendment of the Constitution refers to “freedom of speech,” the term “expression” began to creep into normal usage.

In time, the relation between them was reversed and speech taken as an instance of expression. Law school courses on free speech today are typically titled “free expression.”

In this new definition, reason is removed as the essence of speech. The result has been that expressive behavior gains more credit than rational speech. Crucially, irrational protest with boasts, threats and slogans has become the prime example of free speech.

Speech addresses the speech of another person, whereas expression expresses yourself and wishes to impress, not convince. Expression is more an exercise of power than reason, often venting through social media and organized public protest.

In universities, free expression encounters academic freedom. Universities are academies whose aim is to pursue truth and thus distinguish between true and false. The larger society sets the limits of freedom by distinguishing what is permitted from what is not.

Universities demand reasons and evidence, and to do so they must insist that classrooms and laboratories be unaffected by expressive noise. Those who want to express themselves in venting should do so in public spaces, not in the university.

Protests at universities give them a bad name in the general public. They force universities either to react in defense and look punitive, or to allow themselves to be used and look weak. Last year’s encampment in Harvard Yard is an example of this protest strategy. When most or all protests come from one side — the left — the other side in society naturally feels excluded and may take action against universities, as is happening now.

Student protest is harmless, one might think, too childish to forbid. It would be better if protesters came to feel shame for their actions, but penalties are necessary to convince the public and (just now) the Republicans that we in universities mean business. Harvard needs to convince itself that it is academic.

Academic freedom, therefore, acts as a constraint upon free expression. They are not the same. Protest is inappropriate where academic freedom reigns.

Free speech prospers when great speakers show the value of speech as opposed to expression. To illustrate this, consider two great men disagreeing over a question vital for us: Should one obey an unjust law? Abraham Lincoln said yes; Martin Luther King Jr., more influential today, said no — one should engage in civil disobedience instead.

In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King took full responsibility for his actions. No mask to hide him; no lawyers to excuse him. These were gestures, to be sure, but they served his argument. His willingness to bear the consequences of his protest was a matter of honor, perhaps the same “sacred honor” cited by signers of the Declaration of Independence. This is free speech to inspire Americans with just pride. It stands in contrast to the unreasoned protest we saw at Harvard last year.

It is better to be proud of the speech one honors than absorbed in tolerating people who are trying to be intolerable. One can express that honor — now here is expression! — with a cheer for the Crimson and an uncompelled flag salute for America.

Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 is the Kenan Research Professor of Government at Harvard.