About David Primo<\/strong><\/h3>\nAn expert on campaign finance laws, the federal debt, corporate social responsibility, and budget rules, David Primo is the author or coauthor of several books, including Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of Institutions<\/em><\/a> (University of Chicago Press, 2007) and Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why It Matters<\/em><\/a> (University of Chicago Press, 2020).<\/p>\n<\/div>\nAmong those polled were 250 University of Rochester<\/a> students. Twenty-seven percent of the Rochester cohort said that they hesitate \u201cfairly often\u201d or \u201cvery often\u201d to express an opinion out of fear of their professors\u2019 or classmates\u2019 reaction. The situation is not unique to Rochester; it exists on many US college campuses and follows a national trend, the survey found.<\/p>\nDavid Primo<\/a>, the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and a professor of political science<\/a> and of business administration at the University of Rochester, has made promoting free speech and expression a pedagogical priority\u2014bringing guests from across the political spectrum to his classes and teaching an undergraduate course devoted to the topic, Disagreement in a Democratic Society<\/a>. Primo also directs the Politics and Markets Project, an initiative he created in 2014 to encourage robust but civil discussions<\/a> about contentious policy issues.<\/p>\nDuring a recent campus event, Primo urged universities to remain steadfast in their historical role as places of discussion and dissent. The \u201cclash of ideas is the foundation for a college education. Without that you can\u2019t have a well-functioning university,\u201d he said. \u201cIdeas that shape the world often emerge from college campuses.\u201d<\/p>\n
Fortunately, in the United States free speech is legally enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and many private universities (which are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way as public universities are) have explicit commitments to support free speech and free inquiry on their campuses. \u201cIn other words, students have the right to speak freely, debate speech, and also protest against speech they don\u2019t agree with,\u201d Primo explained. \u201cOf course, some universities do a better job than others of living up to these ideals.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even at universities that uphold the principles of free expression, problems arise, according to Primo, when faculty and students become unwilling to express their own ideas or challenge each other\u2019s. Primo argues the fear of being professionally or socially ostracized is often on the minds of those with unorthodox or unpopular perspectives.<\/p>\n
So, what happens when students think they can\u2019t speak freely\u2014to professors, administration, staff, or each other?<\/p>\n
\u201cA fear of speaking out means that important ideas may not be heard, important discoveries may not be made, and the boundaries of knowledge may not be pushed,\u201d Primo said. \u201cThat kind of self-censorship can also extend to faculty members and influence the kind of research projects they pursue, or feel they ought to pursue. The acceptable range of ideas narrows more than it should.\u201d<\/p>\n
Read on for more highlights from Primo\u2019s remarks.<\/p>\n![\"David](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/inline-meliora-weekend-2022-09.jpg\")
Political scientist David Primo has made promoting free speech on college campuses, including at the University of Rochester, a pedagogical priority. (University of Rochester \/ Adrian Knaus)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n1. Heeding John Stuart Mill on the importance of \u2018the heretics\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n\u201cYou may say there are some people who just shouldn’t be able to speak\u2014those crazy people on the left and those crazy people on the right. The 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill had a name for these people\u2014he\u2019d call them the heretics, which was particularly appropriate given when he was writing, but I would argue is still appropriate now.\u201d<\/p>\n
Primo outlined three guiding principles on disagreement, distilled from Mill\u2019s 1859 treatise, On Liberty<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n\n- We should care about disagreement. We should interact with those we disagree with because we could be wrong. Otherwise we are assuming we\u2019re infallible.<\/li>\n
- You might understand your views on a contentious issue at a deeper level if you talk to someone who disagrees with you. It pushes you to understand your own ideas and positions better, and to learn to understand theirs.<\/li>\n
- Society is going to make progress through error. That\u2019s the hallmark of science: we have to be open to error and have ideas clash so that we can take the best parts of these ideas and move forward with knowledge generation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
2. On \u2018affective polarization,\u2019 or when politics became your identity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\u201cWhen people\u2019s political convictions become their identity\u2014the blue team versus the red team\u2014that\u2019s what we political scientists call \u2018affective polarization.\u2019 Practically speaking, that means if I know that you\u2019re a Democrat, I generally know much more about you than I would\u2019ve known 30 years ago. Same if I know you\u2019re a Republican. As a result, we\u2019ve seen a rise in this idea that we don\u2019t like somebody because they support the other party. In other words, it\u2019s not just that we disagree with people on the other side; it\u2019s that we actively dislike them as people because of their ideology or party affiliation.<\/p>\n
Among those polled were 250 University of Rochester<\/a> students. Twenty-seven percent of the Rochester cohort said that they hesitate \u201cfairly often\u201d or \u201cvery often\u201d to express an opinion out of fear of their professors\u2019 or classmates\u2019 reaction. The situation is not unique to Rochester; it exists on many US college campuses and follows a national trend, the survey found.<\/p>\n David Primo<\/a>, the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and a professor of political science<\/a> and of business administration at the University of Rochester, has made promoting free speech and expression a pedagogical priority\u2014bringing guests from across the political spectrum to his classes and teaching an undergraduate course devoted to the topic, Disagreement in a Democratic Society<\/a>. Primo also directs the Politics and Markets Project, an initiative he created in 2014 to encourage robust but civil discussions<\/a> about contentious policy issues.<\/p>\n During a recent campus event, Primo urged universities to remain steadfast in their historical role as places of discussion and dissent. The \u201cclash of ideas is the foundation for a college education. Without that you can\u2019t have a well-functioning university,\u201d he said. \u201cIdeas that shape the world often emerge from college campuses.\u201d<\/p>\n Fortunately, in the United States free speech is legally enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and many private universities (which are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way as public universities are) have explicit commitments to support free speech and free inquiry on their campuses. \u201cIn other words, students have the right to speak freely, debate speech, and also protest against speech they don\u2019t agree with,\u201d Primo explained. \u201cOf course, some universities do a better job than others of living up to these ideals.\u201d<\/p>\n Even at universities that uphold the principles of free expression, problems arise, according to Primo, when faculty and students become unwilling to express their own ideas or challenge each other\u2019s. Primo argues the fear of being professionally or socially ostracized is often on the minds of those with unorthodox or unpopular perspectives.<\/p>\n So, what happens when students think they can\u2019t speak freely\u2014to professors, administration, staff, or each other?<\/p>\n \u201cA fear of speaking out means that important ideas may not be heard, important discoveries may not be made, and the boundaries of knowledge may not be pushed,\u201d Primo said. \u201cThat kind of self-censorship can also extend to faculty members and influence the kind of research projects they pursue, or feel they ought to pursue. The acceptable range of ideas narrows more than it should.\u201d<\/p>\n Read on for more highlights from Primo\u2019s remarks.<\/p>\n \u201cYou may say there are some people who just shouldn’t be able to speak\u2014those crazy people on the left and those crazy people on the right. The 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill had a name for these people\u2014he\u2019d call them the heretics, which was particularly appropriate given when he was writing, but I would argue is still appropriate now.\u201d<\/p>\n Primo outlined three guiding principles on disagreement, distilled from Mill\u2019s 1859 treatise, On Liberty<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen people\u2019s political convictions become their identity\u2014the blue team versus the red team\u2014that\u2019s what we political scientists call \u2018affective polarization.\u2019 Practically speaking, that means if I know that you\u2019re a Democrat, I generally know much more about you than I would\u2019ve known 30 years ago. Same if I know you\u2019re a Republican. As a result, we\u2019ve seen a rise in this idea that we don\u2019t like somebody because they support the other party. In other words, it\u2019s not just that we disagree with people on the other side; it\u2019s that we actively dislike them as people because of their ideology or party affiliation.<\/p>\n1. Heeding John Stuart Mill on the importance of \u2018the heretics\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
2. On \u2018affective polarization,\u2019 or when politics became your identity<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"illustration](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/campus-trauma-trigger-warnings.jpg\")
\u2018Beyond blue lights\u2019: Navigating trauma and triggers on college campuses<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n![\"a](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/fea-classroom-door-freedom-of-speech.jpg\")
Free speech and trigger warnings<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/fea-civil-civic-discourse.jpg\")
What\u2019s the problem with civility?<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n