Arshiya Husain

By Arshi Husain ’26 and Monty Krakovitz ’25

On April 18, 2024 in the Commons Annex Room, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative hosted a Commons Conversation on “Deliberating Tensions between Faith and Freedom of Speech in South Asia.” The conversation was facilitated by DCI Fellows Arshi Husain ’26 and Monty Krakovitz ’25, the authors of this post. We were joined by Professor of Economics Dr. Shyam Gouri Suresh and Associate Professor of Religious Studies Dr. Rizwan Zamir, who helped jumpstart the conversation by sharing their perspectives on the topic at hand. The students then contributed their thoughts and questions, and a lively and engaging discussion followed.

Our conversation centered on the tension that sometimes arises between faith and free speech, specifically in the South Asian area. However, not only South Asian students from India and Pakistan joined the conversation but also students from around the US and various countries such as Greece and Egypt. In total, a group of 12 students from a range of different backgrounds participated in the deliberation.

One of the professors leaned more towards the position that offending the religious sentiments of citizens in the India/Pakistan area should not be punished by the government because citizens should be able to critique ideas without interference. The other professor leaned towards the position that free expression can be a virtue in some circumstances, but there are other virtues that are more important and are often forgotten on the never-ending quest for inclusivity. In other words, arguments tend to become complicated when we are weighing one virtue (freedom of speech) against another virtue (inclusivity). 

Interestingly, the conversation spread away from the South Asian area and took on a more global perspective. We further discussed the benefits and drawbacks of putting secularism and inclusivity above truth and virtue. Dr. Zamir stressed that the art of discourse lies in understanding how a particular culture works, and how we can construct our arguments to best fit the mold of a broader society. In other words, in order to see eye-to-eye with others, we often need to be able to view the world from their eye-level.

Dr. Gouri Suresh also shed light on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which includes several sections that limit free speech. Section 295A prohibits speech intended to outrage religious feelings (enacted by the British in 1927), Section 124 prohibits speech “that excites, or attempts to excite…hatred, contempt, or disaffection” towards the Indian government (enacted by the British in 1870), and Section 153A prohibits speech intended to cause disharmony between groups (enacted in 1860 by the British).[1] This poses the question: how do we navigate questions about free speech in countries that have hindered it for centuries? India, for example, was among the first countries to ban Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” in 1988—a novel that one Indian elected official claimed was a “deliberate insult to Islam.”[2]

To recapitulate, while our conversation began with a focus on the South Asian region, we were quickly able to draw global connections, understanding that this is an issue that needs to be considered carefully worldwide. We also gained a greater recognition of the historical and legal contexts that continue to play a big role in shaping the discussion around religious liberty, freedom of expression, and inclusivity.

---

[1] Hate speech laws in India. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India; India Code: Section 124A Details https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=133#:~:text=%2D%2DComments%20expressing%20disapprobation%20of,an%20offence%20under%20this%20section; Ananya Bhatia, Weaponization of Colonial-Era Sedition Law: The Future of India’s Free Speech, Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/the-future-of-indias-free-speech.

[2] Rewind & Replay | The Satanic Verses: Why it was never just about the book. 2022. Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/rewind-replay-the-satanic-verses-why-it-was-never-just-about-the-book-8091982/.

By Arshiya (Arshi) Husain ‘26

This March, I had the opportunity to attend the SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue at the University of Delaware. Another DCI Fellow, Stephen Walker, and I represented Davidson College amongst a group of over 100 participants from around the country. I interacted with students from various institutions and academic backgrounds: University of Missouri, Howard University, and University of Pennsylvania, to name a few.

The SNF Ithaca Initiative brings together a diverse group of college students to engage in dialogue and learn how to respectfully and effectively engage in discourse in an increasingly polarized world.

When I first stepped foot on the University of Delaware’s campus, I was met with the buzzing energy of folks in buttoned blazers ready for a weekend of meaningful deliberation. The first person I introduced myself to informed me that her ambition in life is to be able to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth. Others told me they were interested in pursuing careers in environmental protection policy or human rights legislation.

Over the course of two days, I worked in small groups to evaluate the issue of free speech (or the lack thereof) on college campuses around the nation and whether free speech serves as an impediment to DE&I. One case we looked at closely was Liz Magill’s resignation from her presidency at the University of Pennsylvania in 2022. This particular case is centered around the pressure faced by academic institutions to address issues such as antisemitism while effectively upholding principles of free speech. Magill’s resignation, however, highlights a broader, national challenge of colleges trying to navigate freedom of expression in an increasingly politically charged climate.

This experience reinforced the importance of the work that the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) does here at Davidson. Many colleges, I realized, lack similar initiatives and increasingly struggle with getting young folks engaged in essential discourse. While there is work yet to be done, the DCI brings Davidson one step closer to allowing for healthy dialogue on campus and helps foster a community where people can be comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations.

I further had the opportunity to sit in on various panel discussions of educators involved in administrative, deliberative, and DE&I work on their respective campuses. One panelist emphasized on the intertwined nature of DE&I and free speech—”you can’t have DEI without free speech,” she said. Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, both fundamentally and by definition, has to be inclusive of all perspectives and schools of thought. I realized that the societal default has become such that we tend to think of free speech in a context where it is harming marginalized communities.

It is high time that we reframe the way we look at this issue. We must use free speech as a tool to understand the thought processes of our neighbors and communities better—rather than as a weapon to wield in times of divisiveness. I recognize now that those who claim that DE&I and free speech can’t coexist are merely setting up a false dichotomy when, in reality, it is not an either-or situation.

In college settings, especially, it is imperative that students feel empowered to engage in civil discourse on a regular basis. I believe this is a necessary step in creating tolerant as well as diverse communities.

Arshiya Shirin Husain ’26 (DCI Fellow)

“Subjective,” I’ve noticed, is a word that gets thrown around a lot in today’s day and age—not only in colloquial conversations, but also in mainstream media and politics.

I often hear people use subjectivity as a means to settle debates: “Oh, but morality is subjective,” one might say in order to resolve an argument on abortion or gun violence. While I can see how this is a reasonable defense, for reasons I’ve never been able to articulate well enough, it’s always bothered me.

The issue with the “subjectivity argument” (as I call it), in my opinion, is that it leaves no room for healthy debate, dialogue, or discussion.

My time so far as a DCI Fellow has taught me that there is an important distinction between respecting different opinions and understanding different opinions. Perhaps our world is too quick to do the former without paying any heed to the latter. In other words, in our attempt to become “respectful individuals,” we stop asking questions that are often difficult, yet necessary, to ask. In an ideal world, we want respect to go hand-in-hand with understanding.

As an example, I might not agree with somebody who proposes that the United States should have stricter immigration laws. But asking questions such as, “What makes you say that?” or, “Can you tell me more about why you think this?” will help me discover what the other person values and how their own life experiences come into play. Hearing the other side of the story might not change my own political views, but it will ignite a conversation that will allow me to humanize the people on the “other side.” Whereas in a world where I never asked the aforementioned questions, I would continue to feel disconnected from those with different opinions than mine. In the long run, this could lead to issues such as internal resentment being built up on either side.

As a DCI Fellow, I completed a series of lessons by the Constructive Dialogue Institute (CDI) titled Perspectives. One thing that struck me was the idea of how the same values can lie at the core of different opinions. For instance, you might value protecting all forms of life. Perhaps, for Person A, this could mean that they identify as a Republican and take a pro-life stance in the debate on abortion. For Person B, it could mean that they identify as a Democrat and advocate for stricter gun-control in America.

The point here is that disagreements will always exist, as will the subjective nature of most opinions and beliefs. Does this mean that there’s simply no point in arguing or deliberating? Certainly not. If anything, continued disagreement should push societies to engage in even more dialogue to try and see how people might see the world through different lenses.

Additionally, despite degrees of subjectivity, we might often find ourselves surprised to discover the similarities that lie at the hearts of supposedly different arguments. While our beliefs may differ, it is likely that our values do not.

A preconceived notion many have regarding deliberation is that all parties have to reach an agreement, since it is easy to think about deliberation as being only applicable when we are trying to come to a decision about something practical. The DCI taught me that this might be an underlying reason for why we may be afraid to engage in discussions in the first place. But if we all came into conversations with the goal to simply understand, rather than to convince, the world would be a better place.

This concept is further explored in Chapter 2 of Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason by Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse. Aikin and Talisse emphasize the importance of developing a sense of cognitive command, a concept that focuses on controlled thinking and making active decisions rather than passive ones.

What good does it do anybody to move through the world not knowing why people think the way they do, or act the way they do? Sure, morality and beliefs may be subjective. But should we also not try to unearth the mysteries that lie beneath the surface? Should we not try to investigate the root causes of this subjectivity? If for no other reason than to solidify our own beliefs, as individuals.

Society has led us to believe that respecting different opinions and questioning different opinions is mutually exclusive. But this is simply a logical fallacy that, in the long run, only creates further divide and polarization. Look beyond the false dichotomy and you’re likely to find that we become more tolerant of others’ opinions when we can appreciate the reasoning behind them. After all, empathy is closely tied with the ability to understand others.