I am responding to two fundamentally misguided articles in the University Times, “Protests, attacks raise issues about when does free speech become hate speech” (10/18/2024) and “Man charged...” (9/6/2024).

Senate Council President Kear remarked, “We have been talking about free speech versus hate speech and its impact.” Free speech has no hate speech exception. The First Amendment protects sorrowful and jubilant speech, hateful and loving speech, bland and controversial speech, timid and bold speech.

“The increased rhetoric on campus surrounding the conflict in the Middle East has put the University in a difficult position.” On the contrary, the University is not in a difficult position — not in the slightest. Our commitment to free speech must be unwavering, especially in protection of political speech.

I am cynical about the articles’ narratives, which describe an assault by a man “wearing a keffiyeh,” a keffiyeh which we are told is “Palestinian-associated.” Notice how deftly the University Times places collective guilt for the assault on Palestinians. From there, the articles make a fast and loose association with the “two pro-Palestinian encampments” in Oakland and a “pro-Palestinian rally.”

Before we know it, if the narratives are to be believed, free speech of a certain type is to blame. According to the University Times, the problematic type of speech is the kind found at pro-Palestinian rallies.

I, too, have been assaulted when leaving the Pitt campus — a troubling experience. Still, I have refused to engage in identity politics or to spin a narrative for political gain.

By right and long tradition, we cannot stomach restrictions on free speech. In the words of “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams, “I want to know the full list of what I'm not supposed to f**king say, and I’m going to say everything on that f**king list every single day” (without the asterisks).

Thomas Hales
Mellon professor of mathematics and undergraduate director