We helped found MITCAF, the MIT Council on Academic Freedom (see “An Invitation to the MIT Council on Academic Freedom” in this issue) because we believe that free expression and academic freedom at the Institute need independent faculty oversight in order to flourish. Perhaps the threats to these intellectual virtues are not as great as they are at the other end of Mass. Ave., but a recent case on our own campus shows that they cannot be disregarded. (We should emphasize that we aren’t speaking for MITCAF – we know that members have different opinions about the topic of this article.)

A November 7 opinion piece in The Tech reports on sanctions imposed on a student publication, Written Revolution. The publication also has a corresponding student group, recognized by the Association of Student Activities. There are 353 ASA-recognized groups, including MIT Divest, the MIT Israel Alliance, and Jews for Ceasefire. Written Revolution describes itself as “platform[ing] revolutionary thought on campus – we believe that writing and art are among the most powerful tools for conducting a revolution. . . . We also summarize revolutionary actions and activities taken on campus to further the call to liberation, be it through student unions, grassroots movements and demonstrations, or large-scale organizing. We are here to encourage such collective action on our campus. We are the revolution, and we are writing our own history.” No prizes for guessing which side Written Revolution picks in the Israel-Hamas war: “One year after the Palestinian resistance broke down the prison wall that has entrapped Gaza for decades. . . .”

The sanctions imposed on Written Revolution appear to have been based entirely on an essay (and accompanying images) in the current issue, “On Pacifism,” concerning “the movement for Palestinian liberation today.” The author is Prahlad Iyengar, a graduate student in EECS and a chief editor of Written Revolution. The Tech also reports that Mr. Iyengar has been banned from campus by the Committee on Discipline. We don’t know the details (COD processes are confidential) and it would be inappropriate for us to comment. Instead, we will discuss the Written Revolution episode, where the relevant facts are – or at least seem to be – open to view. We should note that, as part of our preparation for this article, we consulted some faculty members with knowledge of the decision.

What were the sanctions? According to The Tech:

On November 1st, Written Revolution editors received an email from Dean of Student Life David Randall informing them that their publication had been banned and censored:

“At this time, you are directed to no longer distribute this issue of Written Revolution on MIT’s campus. You are also prohibited from distributing it elsewhere using the MIT name or that of any MIT-recognized organization.”

What does “On Pacifism” say? The Tech opinion misleadingly underplays its white-hot revolutionary zeal, blandly saying that “the piece calls for MIT students to build stronger connections with the greater Boston community.” Here is how Iyengar puts his main point:

To date, the movement on Turtle Island has seen virtually no success towards its main demands – ending the genocide, ending the apartheid, and dismantling the occupation. Fundamentally, a movement which is not nearer to achieving its goals one year later cannot be considered a success. Here, I argue that the root of the problem is not merely the vastness of the enemy we have before us – American imperialism and Zionist occupation – but in fact in our own strategic decision to embrace nonviolence as our primary vehicle of change. One year into a horrific genocide, it is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc, or else, as we’ve seen, business will indeed go on as usual.

“Turtle Island,” in case you were wondering, is North America. “On Pacifism” argues for “wreaking havoc,” or using “non-pacifist means,” although is silent on the details. In fact, the essay ends rather tamely (as The Tech chose to highlight), with a plea “to connect with the community and build root-mycelial networks of mutual aid.”

Whatever one’s intellectual, literary, or moral assessment of “On Pacifism,” is it somehow out of bounds? Does it contravene any MIT policy, or run afoul of the 2022 Faculty Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom? Here are some relevant passages from the latter:

MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment.

We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious. . . . Even robust disagreements shall not be liable to official censure or disciplinary action.

A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views.

“On Pacifism” is clearly within the boundaries of the First Amendment. It is neither harassment nor a direct threat. What about incitement? As the Supreme Court wrote in Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969), “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added). The Written Revolution essay advocates force, but isn’t directed at producing imminent lawless action – it isn’t the unprotected kind of “incitement.”

Admittedly, the “Free Expression at MIT” website does say that “not all speech that is protected under the First Amendment is allowed at MIT,” but there is no indication that essays vaguely advocating “wreaking havoc” or lawbreaking are proscribed, and the website emphasizes in the same section that “MIT strongly adheres to the principles of freedom of expression.”

If an invited speaker proposed to deliver “On Pacifism” as a talk, the Faculty Statement implies that it would be improper to suppress it. Invited speakers have no more privileges than MIT community members. Therefore, by the lights of the Faculty Statement – which has in effect been endorsed by MIT’s administration – Written Revolution should not have been sanctioned. (We don’t think the accompanying images, which we discuss below, affect this conclusion.)

It is our understanding that Dean Randall’s email conveyed a collective decision, and that the chair of the Committee on Discipline and the co-chairs of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Campus Expression were consulted. Evidently the decision was not taken lightly. Still, what were the reasons given for the sanctions? Despite our efforts to obtain it, we have not seen the email. Dean Randall declined to show it to us (not unreasonably); however, he did provide some helpful context. We emailed the author of the opinion piece in The Tech and received no reply. That article gives one allegedly problematic example, an iconic photograph (accompanying the essay) of the Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Đức burning himself to death in 1963. We cannot even confirm that this was cited in the email.

A WBUR story from November 14 gives some more details:

The latest issue of the publication, Written Revolution, included the article “On Pacifism,” which featured imagery and language that “could be interpreted as a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT,” according to an email sent by MIT Dean of Student Life David Warren Randall to the editors of the magazine.

The email is correct – “On Pacifism” could be interpreted that way. But why does that justify the ban on distribution? If the concern is that the “call” might be answered, the Streisand Effect has ensured that the essay has been read by many more agitators than would have read it have otherwise, and MIT is powerless to shut the Written Revolution website down. Moreover, letting potential troublemakers have their say in public might well reduce the chance of violence: it is now known whom and what to watch out for.

The WBUR story also has this:

In addition to concerns about violent language, Randall’s email also cited the inclusion of several images in the article, including one that incorporates the logo of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.

Embedded in “On Pacifism” are images of two posters – one particularly menacing – from the PFLP. There is also an “Intifada Everywhere” image which dates from 10 years ago. (Awareness of these images is needed for a proper evaluation of the case against Written Revolution; in a striking lapse of integrity, none is mentioned in the article in The Tech.) The reader of “On Pacifism” is left with the impression that the author wouldn’t object to lobbing a brick at the police and approves of the PFLP, but that Marxist-Leninist group is not identified in a caption or mentioned in the text. A small PFLP logo is on both posters, which has the full name only in Arabic.

We should be able to work, study and play on campus without being assailed by derogatory or alarming images or slogans. Posters in public spaces need to have some sense of decorum – no gruesome depictions of late-term abortions, cartoons of Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, celebrations of terrorism, or photos of Kathy Griffin holding Donald Trump’s severed head. We gather that a PFLP poster was displayed on a door a few months ago, before being taken down after complaints. That was reasonable. The Mind and Hand Book sets out the expectation that “members of the MIT community will not engage in behavior. . . that has serious ramifications” for the “mental health, safety, welfare, academic well-being” of others.

The Mind and Hand Book also suggests that this applies to “all communications,” but is that really intended to cover images or other material that can readily be avoided? Free expression means little if one is prevented from trying to attract an audience. Student groups should therefore be allowed to offer magazines or pamphlets containing indecorous images to community members – an invitation which they are naturally free to reject.

The quotation from the email given by The Tech suggests that “using the MIT name” was an issue – which it would have been if the official MIT logo had been reproduced or there was some other indication that the essay bore the imprimatur of the Institute. But there was no such indication. Written Revolution does not even note that it is recognized by the Association of Student Activities. The name of the “MIT Coalition for Palestine” (together with its logo) appears on the last page of the current issue, which of course uses “MIT.” However, it is hard to see why this is a problem. The rules on the “Use of MIT Logo, Name and/or Brand” by student groups (see the MIT Student Organization Handbook, p. 66.) prohibit the use of the Institute’s name “when such use is likely to be understood as an endorsement, even if such an endorsement is not the intention of the person or organization seeking to use MIT’s name.” The cover art of Written Revolution’s current issue “stands as a protest against drone research at MIT’s CSAIL.” It is most improbable that anyone would take MIT to endorse Written Revolution!

More generally, there is little temptation to confuse the views of an “MIT student group” or its individual members with those of MIT itself, especially when it is so salient that some student groups disagree with each other. Indeed, given the Institute’s commitment to free expression, one would expect some MIT student groups to strongly disagree with positions and policies endorsed by the administration. “Using the MIT name” to protest against MIT is a feature, not a bug.

Universities should protect their members against harassment. As the Provost and Chancellor have recently written, regarding recent reprehensible protests in CSAIL, “We can agree or disagree on research or policies at MIT, but we cannot at any time accept individualized targeting of staff, students, and faculty that aims to intimidate them from carrying out their work and studies, or which makes them fearful for their security in their offices, labs and other activities.” We strongly support enforcing rules that enable faculty, staff, and students to do their jobs in the distinctively stimulating environment of MIT. But there is a world of difference between accosting people in their offices, disrupting classes, or building encampments on campus, and writing opinion pieces – no matter how offensive, misguided or distastefully illustrated. The administration’s attempts to protect the community from harassment, and from the real possibility of violence, risk being delegitimized if they are coupled with unreasonable censorship. Wrongful or dubious sanctions will only feed skepticism about punishment that is clearly deserved. Opaque efforts to punish student publications for printing controversial essays undermine free expression, and the sanctions against Written Revolution should be lifted.

Back to top