“Participating in Discussions about Free Speech at BILL was a Transformative Experience for Me as a Public Speaker.” - Katelynn Nguyen

Cindy Owyoung, Vice President of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion at BILL, opened the exciting event by sharing how BILL has made a tremendous commitment to DEI across its more than 2000 employees in California, Texas, and Utah.  She described how proud BILL is to partner with SVUDL on this event.

Raj Aji, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer at BILL, then shared how he enjoyed volunteering as a debate judge for 4 years when his daughter was a debater in high school. The mission of SVUDL resonated with him as he feels strongly about using the power of debate to excel and make a difference in the world.

“As humans we possess this unique ability amongst all species to debate, and we have the capacity to settle disputes through reasoned discourse, rather than resorting to violence,” shared Raj. “Our institutions at the core of a democratic society are based on debate, and the reliance on the principle of debate in our institutions is what inspired me to go to law school.”

As the first in his family to immigrate to the US at age 22, he appreciated the opportunities to use the power of his voice to be heard and engage with society. This is part of what he is particularly drawn to about SVUDL - the chance to hear and offer different perspectives.

SVUDL Executive Director Rolland Janairo spoke next and shared the concept that although talent is everywhere, opportunity is not, and that SVUDL fosters the chance for students to explore careers they might not have known existed before to help imagine a bigger and brighter future.  He also extended his gratitude to the Makahakama Foundation that helped make the partnership with BILL and this event possible. He urged both SVUDL students and BILL professionals alike to use the evening’s opportunity to exchange information, make connections, and network.  He also expressed excitement that the SVUDL students would probe hot button topics relating to free speech on public campuses in order to explore (and model!) a more nuanced understanding while modeling argumentation, disagreement, and civic discourse.

SVUDL alum and Program Specialist Najma Ali served as the event facilitator. She set the stage with the question of whether we should allow unrestricted speech on moral and political issues at colleges and universities, and how it should be balanced with an institution’s obligation to create a culture of mutual respect.

Each of the SVUDL students took a different stance. Independence High School Junior Frank Shau advocated for absolute free speech. Silver Creek High School Junior Kaitlynn Nguyen advocated for freedom of speech with limitations on speech that incites violence. Mt. Pleasant High School Sophomore Ria Tyagi advocated for freedom of speech with limitations on offensive discussions involving immutable characteristics.

Each student had prepared three separate original oratories, and although not a standard debate structure, the audience would get to hear both areas of disagreement and concessions of agreement during the night.

Frank began the program.  He argued that free speech is as important as freedom of religion and that we would not be a nation itself without it. He quoted Benjamin Franklin that whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. He passionately urged that society cannot give power to oppressors to restrict people’s voices – that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

He asked why one governing body, institution or university should get to decide who protects others from themselves or what others think. He warned of a dark future, an abyss where ideas are suppressed and a gray and monotonous world.

The other students each had a turn at cross examining where they posed queries about reconciling unlimited freedom of speech with the harm it may cause, such as  hate speech, and the issue of misinformation being able to be addressed only with freedom of speech.  They also discussed accountability for individuals who use their free speech to deceive and manipulate others.

Katelynn had her turn at the podium next.  She cited a poll that found 85 percent of Americans think free speech is more important than not offending others.  She also noted that the US has some of the strongest protections of free speech of the 195 countries recognized worldwide.

She urged a middle ground where balance is the focus: a compromise between restricted and unrestricted speech in that freedom of speech should be fair so long as an individual's safety isn’t directly threatened.

She urged that everyone has the right to equal participation, and with regard to student civil liberties, we should as a society allow freedom of speech so that everyone can express their beliefs and opinions freely without fear of censorship or reprisal.

“It must be balanced with protection to individual harms or direct threats. Education exists solely to facilitate discussion of ideas. Universities have to safeguard freedom of speech and individual safety for all on campus. Hindering an exchange of ideas hinders education,” she said.

She quoted UC Berkeley Professor Robert Reich who said that the best way to learn anything is to talk with somebody who disagrees with you. She asked how we can reconcile the freedom of speech while understanding that it doesn’t entail the freedom of consequences.

Institutions should create environments where debate can occur, but the reinstatement of slavery or promoting child exploitation should be rejected. These topics don’t merit debate, she urged. And with the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian war, she said campus administrators must make sure that students do not feel unsafe. “Blame is the issue,” she said. “By absolving one side we are polarizing the narrative. Don’t censor discussion; but foster constructive dialogue.”

She suggested that campus administrators convene professors and students with divergent views for dialogue, but one in which they also actively listen to each others’ views and grievances, such as programs recently held at University of Michigan and Rice University.

‘By examining your own bias and position, and holding discussions with solution-oriented questions, there is a freedom of speech integral to the educational environment, along with participation by all in discourse. We can uphold free expression while advancing inclusivity, tolerance and intellectual integrity,” she said.

Questions from the other two students centered on speech that contributes to violence directly or indirectly as well as conspiracy theories and distortion of information.

The final student to have their say was Ria Tyagi who argued that exceptions to free speech must be made in order to properly protect our country, and that speech must be regulated in school settings. She noted that we must be mindful in particular to culture, race, body type, gender, and other immutable traits in terms of forms of hate speech. “If we close our mind to the ability to change, then we would still stand for slavery,” she said. “Now, we appropriately recognize that all people are inherently equal.”

She talked about campuses at Harvard and UC Berkeley and the negative effects of unrestricted free speech on Jewish students in a world dominated by systemic hate and violence. She called for a healthy learning environment for all students where everyone feels safe and protected.

She urged that the school environment must still welcome sharing of opinions and a healthy debate with respectful opposing opinions. The curtailing of speech in a school environment would be solely to address hate speech in relation to immutable traits. “Students struggling with gender and identity suffer from bullying at school: two million students are quitting school,” she urged.  “Absolute freedom of speech costs the health and humanity of our children.”

The other students’ cross-examination centered on the topics of religious classes, the realities of trying to moderate speech and the prioritization of freedom of speech. Next up were summary speeches by all three students who had taken a few moments to reconstruct them based on the questions they had just addressed.

Frank argued that we must fight the beast of misinformation and hate to stop the evils of the world from hiding in the shadows in order to protect America. Katelynn called for universities to create truly inclusive learning environments conducive to intellectual growth: venues where debate can have dissenting views but without hate speech or denying historical injustices as those are beyond civil discourse.  

Ria focused on mental health in school and that safety is key. “You can’t exercise rights if you fear retribution.  Academic spaces should be safe places you can trust,” she said.  

Next came a chance for the audience to ask questions. These questions ranged from the value of unlimited free speech should there be no repercussions to what type of speech crosses the line and who decides when that line has been crossed. Questions also included trigger words on social media; restrictions on freedom of speech setting dangerous precedents; how states vary in their definitions of immutable characteristic values such as trans rights and the challenges educators face in handling these issues. 

The SVUDL students learned so much from this event: “Participating in discussions about free speech at BILL was a transformative experience for me as a public speaker. I felt genuinely listened to and empowered to express my thoughts in a professional, inclusive, and open environment,” said Katelynn Nguyen. “I enjoyed being able to speak and interact with the BILL community and the experience reminded me of why I joined debate in the first place,” said Ria Tyagi.

Thank you to BILL and the Makahakama Foundation for the tremendous opportunity to hold this event!