Free speech is about time and place. They are saying that speech can be free, but going into a political rant in the middle of a class on calculus is not appropriate.
Free speech is about saying what you like, but in a context where others are free to leave. I can't leave my class without prejudicing my grade, but I didn't sign up for your diatribes on human diet.
An excellent example of the comment I was trying to wrangle in my head, inspired by our shared OP: this whole idea of "free speech" or "not free speech," and this university's attempt to codify it, seems remarkably oversimplified still.
First, where did you get this extra context that our OP and I both seem to be missing, that "free speech is about time and place," or that political rants are only ok when people are "free to leave?" I'm not finding anything like that clicking through the links. Is this just your personal value about what you believe "Free speech" to be? Does MIT agree? Has MIT codified something like this? I'd like to read it, if so, because I'm very interested in this conversation and idea.
I'm very interested, because I disagree with you that there is a context (in this university scenario) where "others are free to leave." Easy: extracurricular activities, common ways to get bonus points or saddle up with the professor. Your philosophy teacher likes to go to the local libertarian debate club, a place where a common topic is whether gay people should be "allowed" to get married. The professor encourages students to come, either to "challenge" themselves, or, write a paper on what they observe, or straight up as a bonus points opportunity, whatever. If you think the explicit bonus points is unrealistic or a practice that should end, instead consider the "soft bonus" by attending based on the professor's recommendation alone. In any case, gay students really aren't interested in hearing their very existence being debated, and prejudice their grade by not going. Nobody else faces this difficulty. Better: a gay student comes, and argues whether white people should be allowed to marry if gay people can't, because there's functionally no difference ethically there, and prejudice their white teacher against them. Can you pick up what I'm puttin down here?
My argument is essentially that your point ignores both explicit and implicit power dynamics that underlie this debate. The same dynamics that make "cracker" a far less harmful word than the n-word, or, make a romantic relationship between two adults problematic if one adult happens to be the other's active professor.
I feel like this context is often simply ignored, and I believe that that's because the people that get to decide what these statements coming out of these working groups look like, are people that are mouthpieces for the existent hierarchies that are protecting themselves from change and criticism, the blowback that many are calling "cancel culture" and others are simply calling "consequences for actions."
Free speech, as in the first amendment, has to do with the govt making laws _prohibiting_ speech. It is silent on other bodies (companies etc) which are pretty much free to make their own rules.
Free speech gives you the right to say whatever you like (publish whatever you like etc). It doesn't give you the right to force that speech on me. If I don't want to hear you I'm free to leave. If collectively we don't want to hear you, we might ask (or require) you to leave.
In other words free speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in the context of a wider society.
Universities are in a strange meeting point of freedoms. MIT is trying to codify this (with inevitable shortcomings) because people seem to have forgotten why they exist.
Perhaps they could just come out and say "University is not a safe space, you might hear, or see, anything, at any place or time, and most of it will offend someone."
That doesn't sound like much fun though, because university is also supposed to be a place to learn. It's hard to properly pay attention while covered in the blood of an animal slaughtered in the quad by a vegan to highlight animal abuse.
I'm agreeing with you that in a university context is is impossible to opt out of some activities and situations. Thus there needs to be room for both "safe space" and free speech. I should be able to go to class, I should be able to stand outside the class handing out flyers, I should be allowed to invite any guest speaker I like. Because, it appears that people are people, who need rules, MIT has to try and codify each possible scenario and say what isok, where, and when.
The power dynamic between faculty and students is prone to abuse. Sleeping with a professor to get good grades has pretty much existed since we invented professors and students.
Most universities have codified the ethics around this, and it's well understood.
Equally professors have had radical political views since forever. In itself that's OK, but clearly the politics of the student shouldn't affect the grade (but sure, if does.)
But free speech is not Free behaviour.
If a professor denigrates a woman in class, (say a political studies, of gender studies class) as part of exploring an idea, then OK, that's part of the course. If a misogonist professor grades all women automatically lower, then that's not OK.
Grading is not speech (IMO, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.)
It seems like professors, and students have forgotten basic norms, and need to thus have all the rules written down. And yes, I agree, to MIT I say "good luck with that."
Yes, it's called a captive audience: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/895/captive-aud...
I had a very religious teacher who went on a rant one day about the book 'The Clan of the Cave Bear'. Having read, and loved, the book I was at first very interested in his opinion on it.
He completely misrepresented both the book and the things that happened in the book. I was actually astounded, he very clearly had not read the book himself and got his opinion from somewhere else (this was mid 90's).
I'm completely onboard with ensuring teachers limit how much of their political and religious beliefs make it into the classroom.
OTOH, there was a controversy in the late 90's where a teacher asked a little girl not to wear a "I love jesus" t-shirt to school. Apparently there was a Mexican boy named Jesus in class and it got everyone giggling and was disruptive.
You can understand both sides there, but at the end of the day it's a place for learning and if it's being disruptive due to the students age then it's being disruptive.
So I don't think it's all that simple, but I do think we can do better.