Free Speech, Anyone?

"...If you take sides in an argument people really feel passionately about, half of the people will wind up hating you. However, if you try to be objective about it, likely all of them will."

We all want to believe that our college campuses are where freedom of speech reigns. Among faculty members, the concept has been characterized as "academic freedom." By the time a scholar is in college, he has matured to the point where the mere rote learning of facts and equations is not sufficient. In college, the scholar supposedly learns how to solve real world problems, both technical and social. He studies not only the facts, but also proposed solutions, and he weighs the potential outcomes of those solutions in a search for the optimum one. Ideally, the college campus is where all ideas are laid out for academic scrutiny in the pursuit of the real truth.

Two recent incidents at Columbia University demonstrate that freedom of speech and academic freedom are suppressed by political zealots as much on college campuses as anywhere else, or more. In the more recent, the Minutemen founder, Jim Gilchrist, was so violently attacked by members of the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization that University employees had to escort him from the stage before he could deliver his speech. A few weeks before that, Columbia University cancelled a planned appearance by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. The conservative brains claim that a creep like that should not be given a platform for his hateful views. The Ahmadinejad incident is discussed by Clyde Haberman in the New York times (NYC; Free Speech? )[unfortunately, the Times charges $4.95 for this one]. the Gilchrist incident is mentioned by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal (Sounds of Silencing).

Obviously, Gilchrist and Ahmadinijad have taken sides in their arguments, and some people hate each of them with passion. While Conservatives and Liberals alike speak loudly of the importance of Freedom of Speech, we see those very same conservatives and liberals strive daily to deny that freedom to their opponents. Both the academic pundits and the narcissistic celebrities (Celebrities and Narcissism) suffer from this disease of logical contortion.

Even though I would like to remain balanced on this one, the scales seem to tilt to the left. Both the academic community and the celebrity narcissists seem to abound with liberals. Peggy Noonan's article also points out that celebrities like Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell shut down those who would disagree with them. For these self-righteous leftists, their beliefs are so self-evident that there's no point in debating them. "I feel so much," these zealots rationalize to themselves, "therefore my views are correct and must prevail." They employ smug bullying, vile name calling, and profanity as they try to intimidate their opponents into silence. They literally shout until they win. And they take full advantage of their celebrity access to public platforms that are unavailable to the less intelligent common masses. No matter how much I appreciate the artistic contributions of these entertainers, I cannot abide them strangling our freedom of speech. Conservatives are not without fault here--President Bush stated recently that some ideas are so vile that no reasonable person should think them, let alone say them.

Passion belongs in political discourse, but not threats, violence, or censorship. Passion drives people forward in the presentation of their beliefs. But in a fair discourse, both sides passionately present the facts, their logical analysis of those facts, and proposed actions to change situations that are deemed faulty. What eventually boils out of this stew of facts, analysis, and solutions, are plans of action to make the country a better place to live in. But that happens only if we are allowed to put ALL of the ingredients in the stew, not just the ones that Barbra and Rosie like. Freedom of speech and the opportunity to exercise it must be extended to everyone.

Bound to your freedom of speech are both the responsiblity to listen and the obligation to evaluate the issue through the eyes of those who disgree with you. That means that we do not suppress or censor one speaker. Instead, we offer at least one other speaker an opportunity to present the contrasting view(s). More speech, not less, is what is needed.