Sources of Self-Censorship

Whether it is backlash from the publication of controversial papers or calls for no-platforming, the question of freedom of expression in academia seems to be more pertinent than ever. The conflict here seems to then be one of freedom and responsibility: Freedom to engage in new and perhaps contrary ideas and responsibility to those whom these ideas impact. I address these themes by analyzing recent paper, by Emily Chamlee-Wright that questions when it might be appropriate to resist pressure from the status quo and speak despite the potential for negative feedback. I wish to supplement her account with the need to temper this question of appropriate deference with one of social responsibility. Like Chamlee-Wright, I argue that these have “both positive and negative effects on the quality of public and academic discourse”, but for different reasons. Stereotype and bias inherent in some speech and scholarship may harm the discursive environment and encourage self-censorship as well. These expanded threats in turn require a different solution that would urge deference when scholarship pertains to and impacts certain marginalized identity categories. Self-Censorship does not necessarily mean a lowered quality academic or public discourse, but a necessary element in balancing the concerns of power and perspective.