What’s in a mission statement? At UW-Madison, more than you think.

In 1894, the Board of Regents adopted a report exonerating an economics professor who had been protested for his stance on socialism and labor actions. The report contained the now famous words hanging outside Bascom Hall:

“Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state university of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

According to UW’s web page, these are “The most famous words in UW-Madison history, words that have become synonymous with the university’s reason for existence.”

Too bad that is simply not true, at least not since 1988. That is the year UW last revised its mission statement, a definition of purpose dramatically different in tone and focus from the plaque on Bascom Hall. It states:

“The primary purpose of the University of Wisconsin-Madison is to provide a learning environment in which faculty, staff and students can discover, examine critically, preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom and values that will help ensure the survival of this and future generations and improve the quality of life for all.”

The differences are clear: While the 1894 report is most concerned about inquiry in search of truth, the 1988 mission statement is focused on the “learning environment” (“campus climate” in the language of 2002). The former sets no limits on ideas; the latter only has room for those that “improve the quality of life for all.”

The differences are more than mere semantics. The change in mission statements is but a reflection of a frighteningly widespread intolerance for free speech in the name of campus climate I have witnessed in my four years at UW-Madison.

In the fall of 1998, student protesters interrupted a speech by Gov. Tommy Thompson and completely disrupted another by anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly, whom ASM declared unfit to speak on campus. That same week, protesters entered the Herald and refused to leave until the paper apologized for running a controversial cartoon.

At the same time, professors were laboring under a speech code that held them liable for “offensive” speech. Due to the courageous efforts of a small group of professors in 1999, instructors now enjoy academic freedom in the classroom, but are still gagged outside of it.

The Dean of Students office has been particularly hostile to free speech. In 1998, the dean lamented the effect of the aforementioned Herald comic on campus climate — it goes without saying there was no mention of the effect of a forced apology on the First Amendment.

In Fall 2000, the dean’s office instituted the “Making A Respectful Campus” program, which allowed students to anonymously file complaints of “harassment” and “intimidation.” The program was soon withdrawn under intense criticism, yet the dean’s office maintains the SPEAKUP! program that fails to address the same problems of vagueness and lack of due process.

Last spring saw the protests of the Herald for publishing the now-infamous Horowitz ad against reparations; even more egregious to campus free-speech advocates was the ad signed by 70 administrators that condemned the Herald for failing to exercise its free speech rights “responsibly.”

Sadly, that ad was the only message heard from Bascom. Administrators claimed that both campus climate and free speech were at issue, and they did not want to infringe on either by taking sides. But by refusing to take a stand for the very foundation of the university, the “sifting and winnowing” statement of 1894, the university endorsed the status quo — the mission statement of 1988 that placed “environment” on a pedestal above freedom.

This is unacceptable. Free speech is unpleasant and uncomfortable, and it is simply human nature to try and suppress it when the speech offends you. And as long as something trumps free speech — even well-intentioned ideals like campus climate — the tools are in place for censorship.

The only way free speech and campus climate can coexist is if free speech is fundamental; in fact, this is the only way campus climate can be truly welcoming, both for ideas and people. If your concern is to rid the campus of racism and sexism, then allowing the despicable ideas in the open so that everyone can see their absurdity is the surest route to their extinction. Suppressing speech in the name of campus climate is a betrayal of both.

Fortunately, there have been positive signs. The civil reception given David Horowitz last December was an important moment, as was the vote on the faculty speech code alluded to earlier. It seems that UW students and faculty are returning to the university’s first mission, the sifting and winnowing of ideas. It is past time the administration followed suit.

Benjamin Thompson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.