Inside the Corby Auditorium at Penn Dental Medicine, the School of Dental Medicine and the Graduate School of Education co-sponsored the symposium Balancing Voices: The Intersection of Free Speech and Racism in Academia.
The event, held on Sept. 30, opened with brief remarks from Mark Wolff, dean of Penn Dental Medicine and chair of the Task Force on Antisemitism, as well as from Katharine Strunk, dean of GSE and co-chair of the Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community. They introduced Anita Allen, the Henry R. Silverman professor of law and professor of philosophy at the Penn Carey Law School, who delivered a keynote that explored the history of academic freedom, starting with medieval universities. Many schools today, she noted, take inspiration from University of Berlin’s Wilhelm von Humboldt, who contributed ideas of the modern research university that value freedom to teach and learn, as well as research autonomy. Today, Allen said, these influential ideas are found in the declared principles of the American Association of University Professors, founded in 1915.
Allen referenced the tension between academic freedom and race in the past century—both at Penn and globally—but concluded that Penn’s commitment to academic freedom remains strong and inclusive.
“We are a community that does respect academic freedom, that upholds academic freedom, that values academic freedom,” she said. “But we are also a society of people, a community of scholars, students, and researchers, who value racial inclusion, gender inclusion, LGBT inclusion, Jewish inclusion and belonging, Palestinian and Muslim inclusion and belonging, and I say that not just to say it but because I believe it from the bottom of my heart.”
A panel of six Penn community members followed the keynote, including moderator Charles “Chaz” Howard, University Chaplain and vice president for social equity and community; Fariha Khan, co-director of the Asian American Studies program; Josh Teplitsky, director of the Jewish Studies program; Mei Long, director of the Pan-Asian American Community House; Jane Holahan, executive director of the Weingarten Center; along with Allen.
The panel had a wide-ranging, sometimes personal 90-minute conversation about their experiences dealing with difficult topics in and out of the classroom, how they navigated racism in their own lives, and their reflections on free speech considering ongoing conflicts at home and abroad.
Khan highlighted marginalized communities that, whether because of cultural norms or various fears that come from being a member of an immigrant group, may not feel empowered to speak. While listening to others’ speech is important, she says, people should also pay attention to “the lack of speech.”
“The silence is really, really important,” she says.
“If you are from a community that has been marginalized, you may not feel the power to be able to speak, right? That doesn’t mean you don’t have thoughts, but reaching out and connecting to those that may not be able to speak or may be sitting in silence is really critical.”
Responding to Allen’s keynote, Teplitsky touched on the role of “spaces and places” in dialogue. He recognized the difference between how contentious themes are discussed in common spaces as opposed to the classroom, where he said he’s observed a culture of civility.
“We might think about ways to harness some of the energies that come from the positive world of the classroom, even where students can quite seriously disagree with each other, [and incorporate] those into other spaces of the campus at large,” he said.
Long called attention to the role of social media in not only reinforcing hate speech, but cloaking solidarity.
“[Media is] often forgetting about the very positive things, the solidarity we see every day among people of different racial and cultural groups,” Long said. She went on to cite a story about Teplitsky’s walks around campus to bridge differences as one that can get lost in a media sphere focused on conflict.
Addressing a question about advice for difficult dialogue, Holahan recommended that students—and people generally—assume good intentions.
“There are things sometimes said to me where I go, ‘Whoa, did you really just say that to me?’ Then I step back and [assume good intentions] and say, ‘Tell me more.’ Maybe I misunderstood something.”
The key, she says, is to probe for intention. She added that this has become particularly helpful for her as someone who works with students living with disabilities, some of whom are neurodivergent.
Toward the end of the event, following a question from a Penn Dental Medicine student about what duty people have to respond to hateful or simply upsetting speech when it’s observed, Khan offered thoughts on first evaluating the context of the circumstance and ensuring self-safety. But then she spoke about forgiveness.
“Some people have said really horrible things to me, too, and I may not forget, but I also really try to forgive,” she says. “People can change, they can learn and grow—we all do as well. So, I think having that in your back pocket, the power to forgive someone, is also helping to build.
“It’s not easy,” she adds, “and I don’t want to sound Pollyanna and [like] I’ve done it really well, but it does.”
“It’s a beautiful concept,” added Howard, adding that “we’re all in process; we’re all learning, and particular students are in process and the person someone is when they’re 17 or 18 is different than who they are at 22. The person they are in their first year of graduate school might be very different by the time they’re done here.”
