NEWS’ VIEW: Yale-NUS students deserve free speech

The Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park is the only place in Singapore where citizens can protest publicly after registering with the park service.
The Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park is the only place in Singapore where citizens can protest publicly after registering with the park service. Photo by Ava Kofman.
By
Monday, July 23, 2012

Just over a year before Yale-NUS opens its doors, top University officials remain unable to explain what constraints on political expression its students will face. The Wall Street Journal reported on July 16 that, according to Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis, students at the new school will not be allowed to form political parties or stage political protests on campus.

Lewis disputes the paraphrase in the Journal, and he and Yale University President Richard Levin criticized recent press accounts for misrepresenting the new college’s policies on political expression in a statement last week. But neither president has offered a clear explanation of the new college’s policies, making it disappointingly clear that freedom is an afterthought to Yale’s venture into Singapore.

Lewis told the News last week that Yale-NUS students will be guaranteed “all forms of political expression consistent with Singaporean Law.” That is no comfort, given the dangerous restrictiveness of Singaporean law. Moreover, Lewis has failed to explain what that policy means. He has promised that the school will release a specific policy, eventually, and in the meantime he dismissed any further questions about student freedoms as hypotheticals.

Levin, meanwhile, pointed out in an interview with the News last week that Yale had carved out guarantees of academic freedom and nondiscrimination at Yale-NUS. But he declined to comment about what sort of restrictions on free speech Yale-NUS students will face. Political freedoms, it seems, were not considered important enough to be conditions for the project.

Political activity is fundamental to life at Yale. When something strikes us as wrong, we stand up against it; we tell the world what we think is right. In the process, we hone our own ideas of what is right. We read philosophy in our classes, but we then orient ourselves outwards, conceiving of ourselves always in the context of New Haven, the United States, the world. We want our ideas to amount to more than a theory cleverly defended in a paper or a debate.

If Yale’s name comes to stand for less than that spirit abroad, we will have lost sight of ourselves at home, too. For the University to become a leader in the globalization of education, it must do so in a way that promotes the kind of education — always free, always probing, sometimes subversive — it has celebrated for three centuries.

Establishing a new college halfway around the world is no simple task. There are clearly issues to worry about other than political freedom. But it is unacceptable for an institution that takes pride in liberal values to avoid the issue of freedom of expression as Yale and Yale-NUS have done in the past week.

The administration should delay no further in developing and publicizing specific policies concerning political freedoms at Yale-NUS. Its inability to give clear answers is only tarnishing the project and embarrassing Yale. And Yale students should remember that, unlike their counterparts in Singapore, they can speak — and protest — freely.

Comments

  • pericles

    To the Editors:

    As President of Yale-NUS College, I share your concern about free political speech at the College. This important topic is not an afterthought, as you contend. While the general framework of academic freedom and non-discrimination was set out in the Yale-NUS agreement over a year ago, it was always intended that the College would develop its own policies as soon as it was in a position to do so. Since I took office three weeks ago, this topic has been among my highest priorities. I wish to remind you that we cannot expect that by our mere presence Yale-NUS can itself change or ignore the laws of Singapore. Although members of the Yale-NUS community are subject to the laws of Singapore and governing Ministry of Education policies, Yale-NUS College will not itself restrict the political speech or activities of its students or faculty.

    Pericles Lewis, President Yale-NUS College

    • NathanJRobinson

      This is not at all a reassuring response.

    • anon82

      would you support sharia law or other dictatorial laws?

  • YalePhD

    With all due respect, the fact that Yale has gone to Singapore represents tacit approval for the way Singapore is governed and its laws. Singapore can now claim to be an open society on the strength of Yale’s involvement in NUS. I can just imagine members of the government saying, “Would Yale have come to beautiful Singapore if we were not an intellectually open society?” It was a mistake, driven by who knows what non-academic motives, to get involved with a totalitarian state where even “the importation and sale of chewing gum” are banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore).

    Would Yale have collaborated in a similar effort with similar rationale in Nazi Germany, with, for example, no Jewish professors? How far does a country have to go in opposing free speech and free assembly before Yale deems it an unfit partner. And, if there is suddenly a clampdown as a result, for example, of a “Singapore Spring,” where will you and NUS stand, Professor Lewis? Will NUS be a sanctuary or an open target?

  • YalePhD

    So… (unexpectedly) to continue, Professor Lewis, I left my computer and opened my mail. I found that the discussion continues in the Yale Alumni Magazine. Apparently, the graduates of Yale-NUS will become “International Affiliates,” who will be “invited to many alumni events and included in the online directory (unless they opt out).” Hmmm? Turning the page, I found that some alumni themselves are quite distressed about the very issues that we have been discussing here. I leave it to the Editors of the YDN to seek out and summarize or reprint all the letters from alumni on this subject but I will quote from one,

    “Many years ago, I taught at the University of Singapore, before it became the NUS, as a Fulbright professor. I visit Singapore almost annually and frequently give guest lectures at NUS. Based on this experience, I believe that Singaporeans, including university students, are strongly constrained by the narrow limits of dissent permissible in their society…. Quoting from the prospectus for Yale-NUS, ‘We encourage students to question relentlessly, to analyze problems carefully, and to evaluate consequences.’ As a longtime up-close observer, I see no sign that Singaporean government officials share these goals when the subject is the social and political organization of their society. Indeed, the obviously very carefully worded, at once legalistic and vague, Ministry of Education’s academic freedom provision only increases my doubts.” (Quoted from a letter by Bill Liddle ’59, ’67 Ph.D.)

    Very troubling, indeed, don’t you think?

  • thepisforthep

    Professor Lewis, you claim that freedom of speech was not an “afterthought;” it was merely something to be hammered out *after* the college was up and running, and *after* nothing could be done to cancel the venture. Sounds an awful lot like you and the Yale administration prioritized the goal of going into Singapore over the goal of preserving the character of liberal arts.

    We’ll see whether you or the Singaporean government ends up having more leverage in the debates to come over how much political freedom, and freedom of expression, to give Yale-NUS students. You’re not off to a great start.

    When you say that Yale can’t by its presence change the laws of Singapore, that sounds like an open admission that you don’t plan to ask the Singaporean government to respect political freedoms for your university. I hope your expectations aren’t so low.

    -PC’12

  • yellowasp

    How about we talk about Freedom of Speech at Yale first? Anyone remember how Yale censored the book about the Dutch Mohammad cartoons? We can’t call Harvard men sissies.

    Yale doesn’t agree w/the definition of marriage in much of the US. Should it leave here?

  • lemonnator

    It must first be noted that I am Singaporean.

    I was at first delighted at the prospect of a new liberal arts college in Singapore. The Yale-NUS campus symbolized that Singapore was moving towards freedom of expression and intellectual rigour, and it was testament to the notion that we were becoming a more genuine democracy, where young citizens like myself could engage in political discourse.

    However, the average reasonable person would be able to see the blatant hypocrisy that exists in Yale’s new Singapore campus. It is meant to be a Liberal Arts college, but it’s not at all “Liberal”. It is hilariously yet painfully ironic how Yale, an Ivy League University that comes from a country that prizes liberty above all else, has accepted Singapore government’s limitations on campus activism. Students will not be allowed to form political clubs and parties, and demonstrations will be prohibited on campus, just like in any other part of Singapore. So much for feeling optimistic about becoming a more genuine democracy.

    Singapore is known for being pragmatic, and I believe it would be very practical for us to invest in campus activism. The ruling party constantly bemoans the fact that we have a shortage of good, talented political leaders. If this is true, let us begin a culture of political discourse and allow boisterous youth brimming with fresh ideas to come forth and speak freely. The problem that our country is facing now is that we don’t have enough young people who are interested in politics and will be open to the prospect of entering the political scene. Why? Because to them, their political views don’t matter and everything is going to be taken care of by the “gahmen”. Also, even if they do have strong political views of their own, they are far too afraid to speak up (except in anonymity on the internet), because they know our country is not one that values freedom of expression. That is an extremely unhealthy political scene, and our supply of talented politicians will soon dry up. It is in our country’s interests to encourage youth to think, to write and to speak about politics, and that will allow for a new generation of talented political leaders to emerge. That is the kind of Liberal Arts culture that we should be trying to promote.

    As a fifteen-year-old aspiring politician, I am deeply disappointed by Yale’s agreement to prohibit any and all forms of campus activism. It will only serve to make our political scene duller, when, in fact, this college was meant to make it more vibrant. Moving forward, I hope Yale and the Singapore authorities will continue to find a way to facilitate campus activism without disrupting the social harmony that we enjoy. I am not suggesting that we allow for political demonstrations on the streets of Singapore, but at least on university campuses, youthful idealism should be allowed to flow freely and unhindered.

  • The Anti-Yale

    “that promotes the kind of education — always free, always probing, sometimes subversive — it has celebrated for three centuries.”

    Are you kidding? Yale was a propaganda magnet for the promotion of christianity, sexism, and anti-semitism for decades.

    Let the hegelian dialectic work itself out. Yale-NUS will be the antithesis to stateside Yale’s thesis (academic freedom) , and the resulting synthesis will result from whatever commotion ensues.

    I’m counting on commotion.

    PK