From the founding of Plato’s Academy in Ancient Greece where the likes of Aristotle tried to answer what it meant to live a good life; to the University of Tokyo where Kunie Miyaji became a pioneering female physician; or the University of Al-Karaouine in Morrocco where Maimonades thought through the existence of good and evil; to our very own University of Connecticut, free expression and robust debate of challenging ideas have allowed us to grow and flourish.

Although the modern U.S. academy is still a place to both challenge and be challenged by ideas, the ubiquitous calls to regulate speech on campus is stunting the growth of young minds. Limiting the freedom to speak soon becomes tantamount to curtailing the freedom to think.

One of the most common concerns expressed by institutions about having a speaker or topic discussed on campus is the threat of physical violence and altercations. Words, however, do not equal violence. If someone decides to partake in physical violence against someone else based upon words and ideas they abhor, the mandate for society is not to stymie the debate but to enforce bodily autonomy and both prevent and prosecute those who commit the violence.

If we are to accept that violence is a reasonable response to speech, justifying campus regulation, then we must also accept that the fatwa that took an eye and nearly the life of novelist Salman Rushdie is an acceptable form of maintaining social order. That is the logical result of the “words are violence” mantra and universities, of all places, should reject that outright.

Another justification for further regulation of speech is that certain ideas and thoughts are so controversial that they should not be allowed to happen. But who should decide what is “controversial” or “problematic” language? Was, for instance, the Catholic Church right to arrest Galileo Galilei? Should students at UC-Berkeley have been banned from campus for protesting the Vietnam War? Was it right for Baruch Spinoza’s life to be threatened for his philosophy? Should Dorothy Day have been arrested because she advocated for women to have the right to vote? Is it a good idea to bring back witch trials in Connecticut?

This list could go on forever, but the obvious answer to all the above is and ought to be an emphatic NO. SB 160 will help society, in a small way, become less likely to take those same actions in the future.

When we suppress speech we are not only infringing upon the rights of the speaker, but as Christopher Hitchens reminded us, we are also robbing others of the opportunity to hear an idea. It is, after all, the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. Universities are, first and foremost, a place to learn, and we cannot reach the apex of our academic capabilities without being constantly challenged by new ideas.Attacks on free speech are prompting students to self-censor, which we know from polling of students of all backgrounds. Creating an environment on campus that stymies mindful growth is actively harming today’s students.

Universities that have created effective free speech policies include the University of Chicago, Kansas State University, and Purdue University. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also provides detailed information on this topic for those committed to protecting First Amendment rights on campus, and they also provide examples of related legislation from across the country.