# data[].attributes.headline
NEWS - National Anthem protest: How Penn players took a stand for free speech

# data[].attributes.subject
NEWS - National Anthem protest: How Penn players took a stand for free speech

# data[].attributes.body
This article covered a group of players on the University of Pennsylvania basketball team who refused to stand during the national anthem. During a survey of over 37,000 undergraduates reports show that over 80% of reported students self-censoring their viewpoints at least part of the time. Only 40% of students felt comfortable disagreeing with a professor in class. Players who stood during the national anthem remarked that they respected what the players who remained seated were doing even if they disagree with their viewpoints. All the players as well as coaches respect each other's right to free speech in a respectful manner and are teaching each other understanding and tolerance of different viewpoints.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past few years, college sports have generated any number of tabloid-worthy scandals: steroid abuse, sexual assault, faked grades and more. But sports can also inspire us to fulfill our highest ideals, especially at times when they seem to be on the wane.

I'm thinking about the basketball teams at the University of Pennsylvania - where I teach - and at nearby Villanova, which have rallied around our most beleaguered principle of all: freedom of speech.

Several players at both institutions have chosen to protest during the national anthem, while other players have continued to stand for it. "We had each man explain individually why he's standing for the national anthem, and why they're not standing," Villanova coach Jay Wright said. "The beauty of our country is that everyone is willing to make their own decisions."

That's the beauty of college, too, at least in theory. Open up any university brochure, and you'll see glowing testaments to "personal growth" and "critical thinking." College is where you find your real self, we proclaim, by testing your ideas against others.
Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day
But if you talk to students, you'll find something else: They're scared, so they bite their tongues.

In a survey of over 37,000 undergraduates conducted this year by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, more than 80% reported self-censoring their viewpoints at least part of the time. And only 40% said they felt comfortable disagreeing with a professor in class.

One student at Penn said they did not share their objections during a class discussion about defunding the police, for fear of "being judged/criticized" or "deeply offending someone." Another was afraid to raise concerns in an orientation for new students that included "instructions" about words to avoid because of their potentially racist connotations. "I did not support these rules at all," the student wrote, "but I did not feel comfortable expressing my views."

Got that? When people get here, we instruct them about what is permissible speech and what isn't. And they don't feel they have the permission to speak up about those instructions, or anything else that might be controversial.

That's why the news from the college basketball world comes as such a pleasant surprise. All but three of the Penn players - alongside two assistant coaches - have elected to sit during the national anthem, as a protest against ongoing racial injustices in the United States. But head coach Steve Donahue is standing for the anthem, and - most important - for his players' right to disagree with him.

"We've talked hours and hours, maybe a hundred hours during the pandemic, about the issue," Donahue said. "My thought is, they deserve the freedom of expression. They do it respectfully. I think it's a personal decision."

At Villanova, where half of the players have been leaving the court during the anthem, Wright likewise emphasized tolerance for different points of view.

"Each guy that's in the locker room (during the anthem) told the guys who are on the court, 'I respect what you're doing," Wright said. "Each guy on the court told the guys in the locker room, 'I respect what you're doing. ... So that's what we're trying to teach our guys, take the time to understand each other's opinion, respect it - you don't have to like it - but understand it and respect it."

Those are the words of a real educator. I wish the rest of us would follow them, instead of censoring viewpoints we don't like.

Witness the burst of social media vitriol among conservatives, who have called on Penn and Villanova to discipline the protesting basketball players. Aren't these the same people who rail against "cancel culture" at our universities? And now they want to cancel the protesters?

Meanwhile, liberals who praise the protesters for exerting their free speech rights often ignore or even endorse the many other restrictions on them: speech codes, anonymous bias-reporting systems and much else. They can't have it both ways. If you support freedom for the players, you need to support it for everyone. Full stop.

I'm proud of the basketball players for standing up - or sitting down - for their beliefs. Most of all, I'm proud of their coaches for defending their right to do so. That's a lesson we could all stand to learn, over and over again, until we know it by heart.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is co-author (with cartoonist Signe Wilkinson) of "Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Beauty of our country': How Penn basketball team stood up (and sat down) for free speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past few years, college sports have generated any number of tabloid-worthy scandals: steroid abuse, sexual assault, faked grades and more. But sports can also inspire us to fulfill our highest ideals, especially at times when they seem to be on the wane.

# data[].attributes.headline
Book Study - Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World by Timothy Garton

# data[].attributes.subject
Book Study - Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World by Timothy Garton

# data[].attributes.body
In this book Timothy Garton discusses the evolution of free speech in a modern, more connected world. With the presence of the internet the dangers of free speech are more present. In a world Garton calls the cosmopolis, the way to combine freedom and diversity is to have more but also better free speech. Garton also regales personal examples such as his experience with China's Orwellian censorship apparatus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten Principles for a Connected World

Timothy Garton Ash

Format: Hardcover View Inside
Price: $30.00

Our shopping cart only supports Mozilla Firefox. Please ensure you're using that browser before attempting to purchase.

Paper

Out of Print

Named one of the Best Books of 2016 by The Economist Winner of the 2016 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award "A powerful, comprehensive book."-The Economist "Wise, up-to-the-minute and wide-ranging. . . . encourages us to take a breath, look hard at the facts, and see how well-tried liberal principles can be applied and defended in daunting new circumstances."-Edmund Fawcett, New York Times Book Review
Never in human history was there such a chance for freedom of expression. If we have Internet access, any one of us can publish almost anything we like and potentially reach an audience of millions. Never was there a time when the evils of unlimited speech flowed so easily across frontiers: violent intimidation, gross violations of privacy, tidal waves of abuse. A pastor burns a Koran in Florida and UN officials die in Afghanistan.

Drawing on a lifetime of writing about dictatorships and dissidents, Timothy Garton Ash argues that in this connected world that he calls cosmopolis, the way to combine freedom and diversity is to have more but also better free speech. Across all cultural divides we must strive to agree on how we disagree. He draws on a thirteen-language global online project-freespeechdebate.com-conducted out of Oxford University and devoted to doing just that. With vivid examples, from his personal experience of China's Orwellian censorship apparatus to the controversy around Charlie Hebdo to a very English court case involving food writer Nigella Lawson, he proposes a framework for civilized conflict in a world where we are all becoming neighbors.

Timothy Garton Ash is Isaiah Berlin Professorial Fellow at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; and a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books. He is the winner of the 2017 Charlemagne Prize and has won the Orwell Prize for Journalism.

"Admirably clear, . . . wise, up-to-the-minute and wide-ranging. . . . Free Speech encourages us to take a breath, look hard at the facts, and see how well-tried liberal principles can be applied and defended in daunting new circumstances."-Edmund Fawcett, New York Times Book Review

"A major piece of cultural analysis, sane, witty and urgently important. Timothy Garton Ash exemplifies the 'robust civility' he recommends as an antidote to the pervasive unhappiness, nervousness and incoherence around freedom of speech, rightly seeing the basic challenge as how we create a cultural and moral climate in which proper public argument is possible and human dignity affirmed."-Rowan Williams, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and former Archbishop of Canterbury

"Timothy Garton Ash's new book Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World is a rare thing: a worthwhile contribution to a debate without two developed sides. Ash does an excellent job laying out the theoretical and practical bases for the western liberal positions on free speech."-Malcolm Harris, New Republic

"I recommend addition of this title to the academic library collection. . . . Garton Ash has contributed to the ongoing dialogue about the role of free speech and how it works in our society."-Margaret Butler, Law Library Journal

Longlisted for the 2016 800-CEO-READ Business Book Awards in the Current Events & Public Affairs category

2016 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in the Publishing category

ISBN: 9780300161168
Publication Date:

504 pages, 6 1/8 x 9 1/4
29 b/w illus.

Sales Restrictions: For sale in U.S. and Canada only

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten Principles for a Connected World Timothy Garton Ash Format: Hardcover View Inside Price: $30.00 Our shopping cart only supports Mozilla Firefox. Please ensure you're using that browser before attempting to purchase. Paper Out of Print Named one of the Best Books of 2016 by The Economist Winner of the 2016 Hugh M.

# data[].attributes.body
In this political cartoon the representation of justice, the woman holing the scales, is shown to protecting herself from the odor of a skunk representing the Westboro Church. The cartoon paints the Supreme Court in a harsh light showing that they will do anything to protect free speech. The artist has a clear bias against the Supreme Court in this case showing how they think the court is ridiculous for the lengths they go to hold up their freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
The cartoon depicts the death of free speech with the reason for its death being for the purposes of having a quiet funeral. This is the artist's representation of the Snyder v. Phelps case and how ridiculous they believe Snyder is for suing Phelps when he was protected by the First Amendment. One major bias in this cartoon is the complete lack of sympathy or understanding of Snyder's point of view. The cartoon makes a point to make Snyder look like a very negative presence and the author clearly puts heavy value on freedoms such as free speech.

# data[].attributes.headline
If the Supreme Court could be one super hero, which one would it be? Explain.

# data[].attributes.subject
If the Supreme Court could be one super hero, which one would it be? Explain.

# data[].attributes.body
If the Supreme Court was a super hero it would definitely be Batman. Both Batman and the Supreme Court go about punishing criminals harshly with no regard for their image.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of An Explanation of the Supreme Court