'Manners maketh man' as metaphor for free speech

By Jayden Kim

"I could not enjoy your way of teaching. I think it would have been more effective to deliver intensive lectures, rather than asking students a lot of questions in class. Some other students had the same opinion as me." So goes a piece of social media that one of the students who took my class last semester posted. In fact, I had no idea he had been critical of my teaching.

I did not have enough time to talk with him during the semester, so I did not get to know his thinking. His sudden criticism made me a little uncomfortable. How many people in this world can take criticism of themselves with equanimity?

Sometimes such uncomfortable feelings can develop into actual violence. The recent assassination of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which has developed into an international incident between the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, is an example of this.

Most experts say Khashoggi had been critical of the House of Saud, and that is the crucial context in which he was murdered. And the suspicion that the House of Saud is behind the assassination continues to be reported through the media. After Khashoggi's death, his final column, titled "What the Arab world needs most is free expression," appeared in the Washington Post.

Because of this incident, the term "freedom of speech" has once again attracted worldwide attention. Freedom of speech in the standard Korean language dictionary is defined as "the freedom to express one's opinions, thoughts and assertions without any oppression."

There is no doubt freedom of speech is an important fundamental right inherent in human nature and at the core of a democratic system. However, historically, freedom of speech is a concept that has grown in popularity from the lower strata of society.

The authorities in the upper strata of power have always tried to suppress freedom of expression, and this has helped to consolidate their power.

It is more likely that a person who has no power than one who has power will criticize people in power. For example, I am a man with power in my classroom. I am in a position to give credit to students based on the standards I have set forth, and to exercise my legitimate power to provide assignments to my students.

And this power affects dozens of students, sometimes hundreds. However, there is no law that compels hundreds of students to agree with my teaching philosophy. My students, who have to unilaterally accept it, may wonder why I chose such a teaching philosophy. At this point, it can appear as students' freedom of expression in the classroom.

It is not easy to become strong and powerful in a way that will satisfy all stakeholders in a democratic society. As the power of the strong grows stronger, and the strong play more roles, the more diverse people's views become of their leadership.

Thus, all strong leaders or organizational leaders must understand the fundamentals of how freedom of speech works. They should also be able to accept it as a natural phenomenon. One such leader might say, "The criticism of power in our country/organization has traditionally and culturally been taboo."

Fine, no one wants to deny the specificity of culture. However, unfortunately, the power of social media today is far greater than we think, and we are exposed to diverse perspectives on a daily basis. Because of this, we often have to ask questions about the values and philosophies we have always believed to be right.

Then, how can robust freedom of speech be accomplished? Freedom of speech cannot be established without the right attitude on both sides. If you raise doubts about the leadership of the people in power, you should refrain from unconditional criticism and make a logical and constructive argument.

Positive intentions to find a better solution should be implied. The people in power should not accept such positive criticism as a personal attack, but as an opportunity for self-reflection, for the sake of "the greatest good for the greatest number." Under democracy, perfect strong leaders and perfect leadership do not exist.

Ultimately, freedom of speech can result in a standoff rather than true communication. Freedom of speech can only be accomplished when both parties have the right "behavioral soil."

In view of this, the students mentioned above deserve to be able to criticize my teaching philosophy. In fact, not only that student, but also many students who did not say anything to my face might have silently nurtured the same critique.

So, I look back on my own performance. Did I graciously accept my students' criticism as the leader of their classroom? Did I ever attempt to retaliate against students who criticized me?

In keeping with the motto "Manners maketh man" from the movie "Kingsman," I should reflect on whether my attitude and manner in response to the students' voices were sufficiently sophisticated. The death of a Saudi Arabian journalist made me wonder what the source of my students' complaints and criticisms might be.

What will be my attitude and manner toward my students in the coming semester? Am I a leader sophisticated enough to enjoy freedom of speech with my students?

Jayden Kim (jk.jaydenkim@gmail.com) is a Singapore-based researcher and college lecturer. He serves as director of the Korean Association of Human Resource Development in South Korea. He tweets at twitter.com/JaydenKim_JK.