Scenarios

The scenarios below are intended to be illustrative of situations that community members may face at MIT, with suggestions for how to respond.

These scenarios are based on those developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression that was convened in February 2022, at the direction of the president, provost, and chancellor of MIT. You can read them in more detail in the committee’s final report.

As the committee wrote,

“While we have designed our scenarios to be realistic, none of them holds up a precise mirror to any actual MIT case or controversy, past or present. If these scenarios illustrate any one principle, it is that where controversies over free expression are concerned, context always matters.

Our goal has been to identify the issues at stake rather than to suggest fixed rules for decision-making. We specifically designed some of the scenarios to help inform the work of faculty members serving in an administrative capacity as DLC leaders. We hope that the scenarios will be useful to MIT community members regardless of their roles at the Institute. No scenario should be applied in a hard and fast manner to any real-world situation that may arise at the Institute. Our intention is that these scenarios will serve an educational rather than a mechanical, administrative, or disciplinary purpose."

This applies to the write-ups below as well, and we recognize some in our community may have different perspectives or reach different conclusions. Any situations that arise in “the real world” can only be resolved through MIT’s existing policies and procedures, including its formal complaint resolution procedures.

The Legal Studies program at a U.S. university invites a well-known and controversial criminal defense lawyer to speak on a panel, on the grounds that his willingness to represent controversial, even morally offensive clients—as well as challenge legal orthodoxies—represents an important ideal in the practice of the law. The lawyer was recently retained by a former professor of the university who was convicted in state court for the sexual assault of his administrative assistant. The offense has traumatized many people at the university. At the panel, the defense lawyer presents arguments from his latest book, Should Rape be a Crime?, which advances a skeptical reading of the common law of rape informed by critical legal studies.

In response to the invitation, a group of undergraduate women petitions the university’s president to ban the lawyer from the campus and prohibit his participation in the Legal Studies panel. The group asserts that his presence will trigger traumatic reminders of the felony assault of the administrative assistant.

 

  • Yes. The lawyer’s representation of potential criminals, even in heinous cases, is legal, and the right to legal representation is an important constitutional right. The lawyer appearing on the university campus and discussing this function of the law is an example of the Legal Studies program sponsoring an event that respects the right to free speech.
  • At the same time, faculty should consider how this event may affect the wellbeing of the community. They could consider holding a set of town hall meetings prior to the panel discussion to explain their decision to allow the lawyer to participate in the panel, pointing out the legality and importance of the work the lawyer does for ensuring a fair legal process. The entrance to the venue might be monitored so that attendees are not able to attend the discussion without having been properly informed about its nature and the participants.

  • Academic freedom means that the Legal Studies program is welcome to invite whomever they wish to present ideas that they think will contribute to their intellectual interests. Consider the possibility that a scholar pursuing research on criminal justice reform at the university wants to host a conference on this topic. Hearing from someone who has spent time in the prison system might well provide a valuable perspective for students and faculty to hear in this context.
  • Note that MIT has adopted guidelines for inviting visitors to campus, including that Level 3 sex offenders may not be invited.

You can write an op-ed for The Tech or an outside newspaper, protest in an approved location and in accordance with MIT’s protest and demonstration guidelines, or put together a panel of speakers who hold alternative views. You can also attend the event and ask questions of the speaker directly. At the event, you may engage in peaceful, non-disruptive protest (such as by wearing T-shirts or holding signs) as long as it does not create a disturbance or prevent the speaker from communicating or the audience from seeing and hearing during the event.

A university political science department decides to host a series of endowed lectures on the upcoming presidential election. The head of the department is a staunch progressive and supporter of the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election. She decides, consistent with her authority as department head and with the support of her departmental colleagues, to reserve all ten slots in the series to left-leaning commentators. A group of conservative political science graduate students learns of the proposed list of speakers. They approach the university president to convey their belief that the series, as structured, risks damaging the school’s reputation as a preeminent institution of higher learning open to a diverse range of political viewpoints.

The president responds by directing the department head to respect the principle of ideological balance by inviting exactly five speakers who represent the viewpoint of the Republican Party and five speakers who represent the viewpoints of the Democratic Party. The department head resigns from the university on the grounds that her academic freedom has been violated.

 

  • Yes. Academic freedom means that the department head is welcome to choose to invite speakers who they think will contribute to their intellectual interests. The head of department may have had pedagogical reasons for curating such a list of speakers.
  • However, if the head of the department were a political running mate or direct advisor to the political speaker, this would present a separate issue from that of free speech. If the head stands to gain personally from promoting the candidate, this could be a case of personal conflict of interest that might violate MIT’s conflict of interest policy and would require a management plan that might involve the head recusing herself from the invitation committee and, for example, asking disinterested faculty in her department to determine the list of speakers.

  • Yes, if based solely on the viewpoint of the proposed speakers. The administration should refrain from interfering with the freedom of the faculty to invite whomever they want to lecture in the department, as long as the subject matter falls broadly within the department’s area of teaching and research. The imposition of a strict quota of speakers who represent the two major political parties is not consistent with the department’s academic freedom.
  • At the same time, this scenario may indicate that a biased set of viewpoints has undue influence over the expression of ideas in this department, that school leadership should monitor. Alongside the principles of academic freedom, MIT also believes in exposing students and community members to a broad diversity of views.

  • You can organize a separate presentation or event on a similar topic that features a balanced set of speakers, or alternative perspectives from the other end of the ideological spectrum, such as a teach-in, a public forum, a counter-demonstration, or a debate. You can apply for funding from higher administration in support for these events.

A literature professor regularly teaches a course titled “Revolutionary Drama.” The required readings for the course include the 2015 translation of the 1963 play The Tragedy of King Christophe by Aimé Césaire, which translates Césaire’s use of the French word “nègre”—traditionally used to mean a Black person as well as to denote a slave—as the N-word. A student reads a passage out loud using the English N-word. Another student in the class is offended, and says the first student should have said “N-word” in quotes or used a different term. The first student argues that they are reading the original text, and it is for historical purposes.

 

  • Yes. The choice to read the N-word in the context of a pedagogical objective and, provided it was a valid translation, is protected under free speech. At MIT, we err on the side of allowing teachers to set the teaching methods and educational goals for their own classes.
  • However, this scenario highlights the separate question of whether students in a classroom should be forced to use expressions that they find personally uncomfortable or psychologically harmful. The professor had several tools at their disposal to achieve the same educational goals without hurting or coercing a particular student. If the student reading the passage was not comfortable using the N-word, it is also within their own right to free expression to choose not to use that word.

  • To further their pedagogical objectives, the instructor can discuss with the class in advance their reasons for having the offensive term read aloud and make accommodations for those who would feel uncomfortable doing so themselves.
  • As a student, you can ask to have a discussion of why that word is harmful, but you should not shout over the person reading the word, or call them an equally offensive term back.

A first-year undergraduate residence hall uses a student-run Slack channel as the primary means of hall-wide communications. The stated purpose of the Slack channel is for students to coordinate dorm logistics and publicize events. A male resident from Country A posts on the Slack channel some messages related to an ongoing invasion of Country B by Country A, including the message, “The president [of Country A] is a hero who will go down in history… May the special military operation against the people and government of Country B continue until the people of Country B have been brought to their knees!” 

A female resident of Country B origin reads these posts and asks the head of house to ban the student responsible for the posts from the Slack channel on the grounds that his posts constitute hate speech and advocacy of genocide. The first student defends his posts on the grounds of free expression and insists that any effort to sanction him would amount to discrimination against people of Country A background.

 

  • Yes. However, unmoderated mailing lists/message boards/fora, especially those that allow for anonymous postings, run a risk of turning into soap boxes for people with strong opinions in ways that detract from the original purpose of such digital venues. Viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions are a permissible means to limit speech. Rules can be created that limit the types of content that can be shared over a particular communication tool, and a Slack channel generally used to coordinate the use of shared spaces in a dorm may not be an appropriate place to have such a sensitive political discussion, provided that all political discussion—regardless of viewpoint—is restricted.

  • As we consider this scenario in the MIT context, we recommend a passage from the Mind & Hand Book: “Freedom of expression is essential to the mission of a university. So is freedom from unreasonable and disruptive offense. Members of this educational community are encouraged to avoid putting these essential elements of our university to a balancing test.” Although it may minimize disruption, unless there are clear rules limiting the permissible uses of the Slack channel, banning the first student, while allowing others to engage in political discourse, would deprive the community of the opportunity to counter the original post with reasoned arguments demonstrating the extent to which his comments may be contested.
  • While one comment may not amount to harassment, if the first student’s comments become so severe or pervasive that they interfere with other community members’ ability to participate in discussions over the Slack channel, the Institute may eventually be able to take action to restrict or prohibit the student from using the channel.

You can counter the original post with reasoned arguments. The head of house can invite and encourage the student who made her complaint to make clear her objections on the Slack channel. The head of house and/or Slack channel moderators also have the prerogative to express personal opposition to the original messages. The administrators of the Slack channel could establish viewpoint-neutral guidelines, applicable to all members of the community, that limit the permissible topics that can be discussed on the channel. In that case, the original poster still has the right to express his views in a different forum, such as by starting a different Slack channel for the purpose of political discussion.

A university makes the decision that the student health insurance plan will no longer cover mental health appointments. The students will now have to pay out of pocket for weekly therapy sessions. Students have written letters, hung signs on their windows, and met with university officials multiple times about how important these appointments are. The administration tells the students that they are going to move forward with changing the insurance plan at the end of the semester.

The students decide on a multipronged protest as a last-ditch effort to change the administration’s decision. They graffiti the outside of the health center, occupy a university office, and block the entrance to the MIT Health parking garage.

 

  • Protesting university actions—by writing letters, hanging signs, speaking out against the actions of university officials, and even participating in peaceful demonstrations—is protected, as long as students follow established time, place, and manner restrictions (Guidelines for Free Expression at Campus Events, Vigils, Protests, and Demonstrations).
  • However, there is a difference between permissible free expression and misconduct that violates law or policy. Graffiting, for example, is prohibited by laws and policies around destruction of public and MIT property. Occupying the office and blocking vehicles is also prohibited, as it interferes with the essential operation of the working and educational environment.

  • You can write guest editorials or send letters to campus newspapers, other media platforms, political representatives, and other groups, individuals, administrators, or responsible parties. You can lend support to those who may be impacted by the administration’s decision.
  • While peaceful demonstrations that follow time, place, and manner guidelines are generally allowed, if you protest by blocking entrances or exits, impeding pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or using amplified sound such that it disrupts university functions or activities, those actions are not permissible forms of protest and may be met with disciplinary consequences.