In a thought-provoking panel discussion, Worcester State faculty experts grappled with the complex realities of free speech in our polarized society.
The Nov. 14 event, titled “Free Speech: Myth and Reality,” was the first of several events that will be presented by the Office of Academic Affairs as part of the university’s 150th anniversary celebration. The forum, held in Eager Auditorium, brought together faculty members from various disciplines to share their perspectives on this contentious and often misunderstood topic. Panelists were Nathan Angelo, associate professor of political science; Erika Briesacher, professor of history; Charlotte Haller, professor of history; Carter Hardy, assistant professor of philosophy; Matt Ortoleva, professor of English; Jamie Remillard, associate professor of English; and Cleve Wiese, associate professor of English.
The discussion was moderated by Russ Pottle, Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences and Henry C. Theriault, associate provost, and was followed by Q&A with the audience.
The panelists covered a wide range of points related to free speech in the five minutes each was allotted to address the issue. The discussion touched on the legal and political dimensions of free speech, noting its contested history and the need to balance rights with responsibilities, the role of rhetoric, the value of rhetorical listening, and the challenges of fostering meaningful public deliberation amid polarization and power imbalances. The following are a few highlights:
Dr. Hardy opened the discussion by talking about the emotional undercurrents that often underlie speech and stressed the need to understand the emotional contexts that shape how people communicate, rather than simply focusing on the content of their words.
“Most of our speech takes place in these emotional atmospheres in which we all exist,” he said, “and our emotions are going to inform whether or not we’re going to try to isolate ourselves into echo chambers, which will make us feel comfortable, especially just being with our group, versus things that are going to make us uncomfortable even if they may cause us to grow as people.” He emphasized the role of emotions like anger, love, fear, and solidarity in shaping how people engage in dialogue and public discourse.
Dr. Haller provided historical context, noting that free speech has never been a “settled concept” in American law and that there are gray areas and points of debate around free speech policies, especially at universities.
She pointed to recent efforts by universities to impose new speech policies, often without input from the broader community, as examples of the ongoing debates surrounding the boundaries of free speech.
Providing a literary and journalistic lens, Dr. Ortoleva emphasized the critical role of a free press in a healthy democracy. He cautioned against the dangers of “shoddy journalism” or “propaganda masquerading as journalism,” while also acknowledging the need for ethical guardrails to prevent abuses.
He offered a hopeful note for the future saying that he has observed student journalists at Worcester State pursuing the truth in their reporting, collaborating with each other, and working in a cautious, ethical, and diligent manner.
“I’ve recently been working closely with student journalists, and I see how truth concerns them and how they chase it,” he said. “I see the work they put in, the questions they ask of each other and the stories they tell. I see their collaboration. I see them working cautiously, ethically, and diligently towards truthful reporting.”
From a legal and political perspective, Dr. Angelo challenged the idea of a single, definitive understanding of free speech, arguing that it has always been a politically contested concept. He said there is a “mythological version of freedom of speech” and a “reality of freedom of speech,” and that free speech has never been a settled concept in American law.
He highlighted the tensions between those who believe in an absolute right to say whatever they want and those who see free speech as a legal construct with reasonable limitations.
European history expert Dr. Briesacher broadened the discussion, urging the audience to consider how power structures and cultural contexts shape the way we conceptualize and apply the principles of free speech. Recognizing who has the authority and structural power to define and enforce how we talk about free speech is a critical factor in understanding the issue, she said.
Dr. Wiese proposed exploring alternative models of discourse, such as the debating practices used in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, as a means of fostering more productive and insightful public dialogue. A core part of the curriculum is a type of debate where contrarian or even “heretical” views are not just tolerated but required. Everybody must play the role of a challenger, taking “crazy” or “wrong” positions.
He suggested this model of debate, where even noxious views are openly expressed, could be a useful model for facilitating free speech that encourages critical thinking and leads to greater insight and truth, rather than just confirming biases.
Finally, Dr Remillard said free speech is rhetoric, not science and that genuine public discourse should involve “rhetorical listening”—being open to understanding different perspectives, including opposing ones, rather than dismissing, mocking, or rejecting them outright.
However, true rhetorical listening is often lacking, replaced by “quasi-dialogue” and performative models of public discourse that create the illusion of deliberation while decision makers dismiss or bury competing perspectives, she said.
“There is a deficit or technocratic model of public participation where groups or institutions give the appearance of listening without a genuine commitment to entertain meaningful change based on public input and free expression,” she said.
Throughout the panel, the speakers emphasized the need for nuance, critical thinking, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives—qualities that they argued are essential for upholding the true spirit of free speech in an increasingly polarized world.
Photo by Nancy Sheehan
Academic Innovation
Students save money and show academic success in affordable course materials initiative
Worcester State University undergraduates saved nearly $2 million on textbooks and course materials last academic year by taking advantage of the university’s more than 1,000 course sections . . .