Self-censorship is more than just silence–it’s silencing.
In recent years, the college free speech debate has descended into a blame game. Students often blame campus “watchdogs,” typically on the left, for policing speech and stifling open discourse.
These watchdogs exist, without question. They discourage discussion by making the cost of speaking too high—usually through a mix of public shaming and social exclusion. However, the problem of free speech on campus is not as simple as blaming these self-appointed enforcers. Censorship on college campuses is a two-sided coin, and ignoring the other half would be a disservice. For every censor who shuts someone down, countless others shut themselves up.
At the 5Cs, there is rampant self-censorship. At CMC in particular, 24% of students report self-censoring for fear of how other students will respond on a weekly basis. Often overlooked, self-censorship damages our community through its chilling effect extending beyond the individual.
To put it in language we CMCers might understand better: demand for diverse viewpoints is high, but the supply of people willing to express those views is low.
The relationship between censorship and self-censorship is synergistic. Watchdogs create an atmosphere where students hesitate to speak out, afraid that a poorly worded thought or a controversial opinion will lead to undesired backlash. Internalizing those pressures, students preemptively silence themselves. But without the catalysts of outspoken peers with controversial views, no one wants to be the first to break out of the cycle.
We tend to think of self-censorship as an individual act—a private decision to remain quiet in a specific moment. But the effects of self-censorship extend far beyond one person’s reluctance.
What we often forget is that speaking out and speaking one’s mind is a habit, formed by repetition. Like any other skill, the ability to engage in open discourse strengthens with practice and withers without it. For most, it does not come easily to speak up at all, let alone to share a potentially controversial opinion. But just as an engaging classroom discussion depends on student participation, a campus-wide culture of free expression relies on students willing to engage openly. When few speak, the same voices dominate, not just limiting the diversity of ideas but also discouraging participation altogether. A silent classroom is not just missing perspectives—it is missing the collective effort required to create an environment where speaking feels possible in the first place.
Part of the reason speaking out is so hard is that we often discourage sharing half-baked opinions. In other words, they shouldn’t voice their opinion unless they are willing to die on that hill. This leads to inauthentic rhetoric sanitized and diluted with jargon which only hints at potential opinions while encouraging individuals to never fully associate themselves with a stance.
Fear of cancel culture leads to self-cancelation. If we think it’s important to fight against cancel culture, that starts at the individual level. And if you don’t cancel others but simultaneously cancel yourself, you remain complicit.
Of course there are certainly times when self-censorship is well-warranted. Words can injure and offend, destroy friendships or turn minor disagreements into major disputes. We can and should all choose our battles, and our words, carefully. But there is a distinction between common decency and corrosive self-censorship.
No doubt, people self-censor in censorious environments. Yet few recognize that censorious environments are not just those in which watchdogs call others out. They are environments where everyone self-censors to a fault.
At CMC, the message to students is not simply that the school wants people to express new points of view, but that students should “feel empowered… to present new and controversial ideas.” While some of us may feel able, I know few who feel empowered to do so.
To reclaim the open exchange of ideas, students must understand that speech is not just a matter of personal risk—it is a shared responsibility.
Comentários