The PANAFRICAN Review
For Free Speech , Africans Must First Fix Education
Lonzen Rugira
The American Academic , Dr . Emily O ’ Dell , took a seminar outside of the U . S in search of a environment where she could exercise freedom . After the event , the professor and her colleagues posted a picture with the caption , “ So grateful to have the academic freedom of speech in # Algeria to discuss topics which at Yale are verboten ( Unless you want to be harassed & physically intimidated , look out !) – – thank you , Algeria , for letting us speak out against war , imperialism , capitalism & racism ! Fight on !” The suggestion was that freedom of speech is respected in Algeria than it is in the United States . A Twitter exchange between two academics ensued as follows :
Dr . Golooba-Mutebi : Life and its surprises ! So Algeria is a free space for discussing topics which are “ verboten ” ( forbidden ) at Yale University ( US ). No freedom of speech in “ the land of the free ”??
Dr . O ’ Dell : Was told cannot do research on Malcolm X , cannot speak out against America ’ s endless wars , and on and on goes the list of topics not allowed at Yale .
Dr . Golooba : Yet we in Africa think freedom of speech in the US is limitless . And don ’ t we like using it as an example of what we should be like !
Dr . O ’ Dell : True .
Dr . Golooba : No end to US hypocrisy …
This discussion affirms that freedom is not limitless anywhere . Secondly , it underscores that much as freedom of speech and conscience are inherent , the extent to which they are applied remains under the control of social forces . If it ’ s not the legal system that establishes the acceptable threshold beyond which an offender transgresses protected freedom , it is social norms that set boundaries .
Certainly , Dr . O ’ dell and her colleagues would be breaking no laws by discussing or teaching America ’ s wars or Malcolm X . However , there ’ s clearly a value system that has determined such action to be taboo and to place social stigma on anyone exercising speech along those lines . It is considered overstepping the boundaries of acceptable speech . In both the legal and social perspectives , “ free speech ” isn ’ t as free as advertised , as Dr . O ’ dell quickly discovered .
The legal boundaries for “ free speech ” are in the American constitution . However , the social boundaries are not written anywhere . They are found in the dominant culture , formulated and codified by the American education system , which implicitly establishes a set of common values – a consensus – that people who go through it are expected to subscribe to before they return to society to make meaningful contribution , within those confines and through reciprocal relations .
Any deviation from that consensus invites – legal or social – punitive measures . This is in line with the overarching purpose of education anywhere : to nurture human beings who conform . People conform to laws because they don ’ t want to go to jail and get stigmatized as outlaws . They also conform to social norms because they don ’ t want to be stigmatized and turned into outcasts .
So , these legal and social parameters are generally internalized , including those to do with acceptable speech – “ free speech .” This internalization means that during speech the mind understands that it is involved in self-governance and , in fact , that it is circumscribed – whether the practitioner of free speech is conscious of this or not . In other words , speech is free but everywhere in chains .
As noted above , the idea of society and its prerequisite for order conditions people into reciprocal relations in general and around freedom of speech in particular .
50