Brown University Student: Cancelling ‘American Sniper’ is ‘Perfectly Consistent with Freedom of Expression’

Straight from Brown University’s student newspaper The Brown Daily Herald is a directive from the Ministry of Truth.

Opinion columnist Nicholas Asker ’17 published a piece on Tuesday titled “Universities shouldn’t speak freely” arguing that the cancellation of “American Sniper” at the University of Michigan last week was “perfectly consistent with freedom of expression.” Asker also compared the acclaimed war movie about a psychologically-torn American war hero to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

The Cornell Review has already covered the controversy surrounding the cancellation and reinstatement of an “American Sniper” showing at U-M. To recap, after receiving complaints from Muslim and Arab student groups, university officials cancelled a showing of the movie, claiming the movie’s content is “harmful” and that it would make students “feel unsafe and unwelcome.” Widespread outcry and dissent, including most notably from the school’s head football coach Jim Harbaugh, led the university to reinstate the showing.

Asker’s article argues that showing the graphic and intense war movie in a casual setting was inappropriate, likening the showing in such a setting to finding a copy of Mein Kampf in a doctor’s office. The columnist goes on to credit the movie with promoting “divisiveness” and questions whether anyone should watch the movie for leisure due to its violence and “depicting so many war scenes.”

Then Asker whips out his Ministry of Truth employment guide and pens this paragraph:

“But really, canceling the movie is perfectly consistent with freedom of expression, and showing the movie is what contradicts freedom of expression. As we will see, doing so silences Arab voices, so it conflicts with the purpose of promoting free speech on campuses — to foster students’ intellectual growth through exposing them to many different perspectives.”

Immediately after this paragraph, Asker prevaricates by writing: “Obviously free speech on a college campus is enormously valuable and something colleges should ardently encourage.” He carves out an exception for “American Sniper” by arguing that U-M should not sponsor events which present only one view on “as issue” (the issue is unspecified). Naturally, privilege plays a role here too, as Asker notes by writing, “The privileged view gets the limelight and, simply because of its prominence, people buy into it.”

Asker’s central point is that a university should not promote or sponsor events wherein only one view on a contestable topic is presented. However, this showing of “American Sniper” was not mandatory and so no potentially-offended student had to view it, and there was no major, university-wide push to urge students to attend it. Under these circumstances, there is no way to argue U-M was specifically pushing, providing, or endorsing any specific views that can be interpreted from “American Sniper.”

Additionally, it is wholly impractical to request all events on campus feature speakers or presentations of different or opposing viewpoints. At a showing of “Schindler’s List” must Holocaust-deniers’ views be presented? Would pro-Palestinian student groups heed the requests of those desiring pro-Israeli speakers be featured at their events and vice-versa?  Some events are designed for such a thing–they are called debates. Other events are simply not. If Mr. Asker is so dismayed by the selection of this movie for showing, perhaps he and like-minded Brown students can join whatever student club or organization is in charge of movie selection and make sure no more war movies are shown.

Or, student groups at the University of Michigan, Brown, and elsewhere can continue to wage their campaign against the free expression and exchange of ideas. After all, “ignorance is strength.”