Freedom of speech is incredibly important. The free exchange of ideas is a necessity for social progress. When freedom of speech is not a right, ideas that challenge the status quo are suppressed, even though such ideas have borne some of the greatest advancements in society. Freedom of speech facilitates a constructive approach to progress — and progress is exactly what universities are for. Luckily, we have academic freedom at NYU Abu Dhabi where anyone may speak without legal repercussions. It all sounds perfectly fine, right?

Yes. It sounds fine because we lived through the Muhammed cartoons. We lived through the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. We lived through a time of debate in which many conservatives claimed Islam to be incompatible with freedom of speech. We discussed freedom of speech in all its legality — should countries outlaw racist speech? Blasphemy? These are important questions, but in our focus on legality, we forgot one limitation to freedom of speech: self-censorship. I believe that self-censorship is the biggest limitation to freedom of speech on our campus — and we should talk about it.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines self-censorship as “Control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary.” As is evident in the popularity of anonymous NYUAD Facebook fora, where students openly state opinions that are not otherwise expressed on campus, self-censorship occurs at NYUAD — a lot. Considering its definition, we must ask ourselves why people are afraid that their opinions will annoy or offend others. Do we live on a campus where it is uncomfortable to express contrary opinions?

I have written articles for The Gazelle on the recent U.S. presidential election, but finding people willing to express their opinions for the articles was difficult. The anonymous Facebook discussions were so vivid, yet very few students actually wanted to speak their minds in person. I met people from all ends of the political spectrum who did not want to vocalize their opinions, because they were afraid of gossip or of losing friends. The question remains: what kind of diversity exists on a campus where friends cannot have different opinions?

Although people do not self-censor in fear of social stigma everywhere, in this bubble of a campus where everyone knows everyone, there is a clear pressure to do so. In other places, you can always find people who share your opinion. Regardless, we should encourage the exchange of ideas, because that is what progresses our society and our university.

We are all smart people on this campus. Most of us have clear opinions and naturally, we think we are right. But the kings of medieval Europe probably thought they were right too, and new ideas eventually proved to society that they were not. We think we are right, and when we present our arguments, they seem self evident. If someone argues otherwise, they must be stubborn or stupid, and why would we be friends with someone like that? This is what prompts social stigma and so, the process of exchanging ideas is stopped because we are unreceptive.

In one recent post on NYUAD Confessions Page on Facebook, an anonymous contributor questioned the Pakistani Mock Wedding event. It is “absolutely unacceptable to say something that opposes the mainstream ideas here [at NYUAD],” the post states. Is it not worrying that our fellow students feel like this? I wish this person would write openly on NYUAD Forum instead — or even on the Gazelle — but I also understand their reluctance. If I had held that opinion, I would not have been comfortable telling anyone either. I would have been afraid of social stigma. But if I knew that I could express myself freely without consequences, I would have voiced my opinion and we could all have constructively looked each other in the eyes, debated it and walked away in good spirits.

It is not easy to present a solution to this problem. I can only call for acceptance of friendship with people who hold different opinions than ourselves — if not in principle then at least because we cannot expect a free exchange of ideas if its consequence is the burning of social bridges. I know from people who self-censor that this is a concern, but imagine if we could disagree on complex issues, be vocal about it and still be friends.

That is my dream world, where also this article will spark debate. Where next week’s issue of The Gazelle will include a response to this article by someone who completely disagrees with my point, and where we will still meet and greet each other on the NYUAD highline the next day, as friends.