ABSTRACT
Recently, PEN America published a plea for free speech on campus. Its message was that speakers should not be forbidden simply because they make some people uncomfortable, even if those people are from traditionally oppressed groups for whom the university is actively trying to create an inclusive atmosphere. Further, the article claimed that while it is certainly more difficult for students to feel at home on campuses from which they were traditionally excluded, and while university attempts to reach out to those in such groups is laudable, this should not come at the price of free speech. This is one of those cases where the argument is good, but the conclusion is nonetheless false. Or, to put it in a way more consistent with the rules of logic, this a good argument for a different conclusion.
This paper argues that speech should not be banned merely because it contributes to feelings of discomfort and exclusion, even though those are truly bad things both in the short and the long terms. Some speech should, however, be banned. Speech should be banned because some speech simply is not educational: It’s false, obviously false, and too obviously false to serve as a useful focus for intellectual criticism. The limited time students spend in educational institutions should be geared to teaching them as much as we can of what is both important and true.
