This letter to the editor from the Middlebury College Republicans is a response to the Editorial Board’s (E.B.) piece titled “To Maintain Free Speech, Start Listening,” published in the Sept. 18 issue of The Campus. I am leading the writing of this letter with the consultation of club members, including Dylan Carroll and Erin Faith Fuller, among others. In their piece, the E.B. has characterized their position as being supportive of free speech. However, a close reading of their argument reveals that they paradoxically take a position leaning in favor of censorship and intolerance rather than any legitimate form of free speech.
We, as the members of the Middlebury College Republicans, have decided to respond with this letter outlining the flaws in the E.B.’s understanding of free speech. With advocacy for freedom of expression and intellectual rigor on campus being the first priority for our club, it would be unfortunate for the arguments presented by The Campus E.B. to remain unchallenged as the authority on free speech on campus.
There are several claims made in the E.B.’s article that we will address. First, they write that “unlike co-existing in the general public, living on a college campus entitles you to a sense of security.” College is not a safe space. Going to college is designed to expand and challenge your understanding of the world, not to reaffirm your preexisting beliefs, as the E.B. seems to insinuate. The E.B. already understands this: They operate as an assembly due to differing beliefs. Society works the same way. If one person had a monopoly on the truth, dialogue would not be necessary. If the purpose of higher education were to disseminate the ultimate truth, we would be at a seminary, not a liberal arts college. Real safety is freedom from physical harm, not from disagreeable ideas. Equating the two creates a close-minded environment that does a disservice to the students by implying they are unable to handle opposing viewpoints. We strongly believe that students should be emboldened to explore all viewpoints, not only for their own enlightenment, but also for the community’s intellectual benefit.
The E.B. then claims that “inviting ‘controversial’ speakers to speak on moderated panels does not foster political conversation, but instead creates a top-down system, where students are made to listen to views with no chance to engage with said speakers.” There are four main issues with this claim.
First, we spend most of our time at school in a top-down system of education — the classroom. Should we not go to lectures anymore, if it is a deficient way of learning? The E.B. must recognize the porous nature of this argument; after all, they encourage students to “start listening,” which is exactly what speakers and lecturers need for their ideas to be heard. Further, if speakers are inherently unfair, why did the E.B. not object to other speakers that have come to campus, instead of referencing just one?
Second, and closely related, the E.B. has unintentionally revealed its bias by only referencing the transgender healthcare talk while disregarding many of the left-of-center individuals who regularly speak on campus. Who gets to decide which speaker is “controversial”? We believe all speakers, regardless of how “controversial” they are, should be invited and encouraged to speak at Middlebury.
Third, the E.B. was concerned that they were not able to sufficiently engage with the two speakers at the talk about transgender healthcare. However, we had several members from our club meet with Leor Sapir and Brianna Wu from the discussion before and after the event, along with other students — some even had dinner with them. Choosing not to engage is different than not being allowed to.
Lastly, the E.B. writes, “We also affirm that our campus should commit to freedom of speech, while actively limiting hate speech.”At first glance, this sounds reasonable — of course, no one wants to encourage hostility. But if we leave “hate speech” undefined and ambiguous, anyone can define anything as hate speech when someone says something they don’t agree with. Who gets to decide what is and isn’t hate speech? What one person finds hateful, another may see as a valid expression of belief or critique. If the line between free expression and hate speech is blurred, it becomes dangerously easy for institutions — or even just the loudest voices on campus — to silence ideas they find disagreeable under the guise of “protection.” That is not protecting freedom of speech; it is curtailing it. The principle of free speech cannot be sustained if its limits are drawn according to shifting or subjective definitions. Otherwise, we risk eroding the very freedoms we claim to uphold.
Middlebury ranks 249th out of 257 in FIRE’s 2025 free speech rankings, earning an “F.” This reflects a campus climate where many feel unsafe voicing their opinions. Together, we have a responsibility to change that. Tolerating and hearing all perspectives doesn’t divide us — it makes our campus more inclusive and strengthens us. Shielding ourselves from discomfort may feel protective in the moment, but it leaves us unprepared. The people inhabiting the world outside our secluded campus are not 90% left-of-center; in fact, they represent a much larger array of beliefs and opinions. The true promise of Middlebury is not only graduating with an elite education but also being prepared to thrive in a diverse and challenging world.
