Tag: Freedom of Speech

Posted on

college clashes and a little bit more

Beginning with an editorial intro from USA Today this week:

“At Claremont McKenna College in California, protesters blocked the doors to a lecture hall preventing conservative author Heather Mac Donald from speaking. At Middlebury College in Vermont, a professor accompanying libertarian author Charles Murray was injured by an angry mob. At the University of California-Berkeley and its surrounding community, protests against scheduled speakers have turned ugly.”

Last week bitingly-sarcastic (and in my semi-humble opinion, sometimes both incredibly witty and incredibly rude) conservative commentator, Ann Coulter, was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. Coulter was invited by a nonpartisan, student organization. People protested. Violence was threatened. Berkeley attempted to postpone the event. Coulter eventually cancelled because of the rising intensity of security threats.

What has since ensued is a debate over free speech and the First Amendment on college campuses.

Again, from the USA Today editorial board:

“In just the place where the clash of ideas is most valuable, students are shutting themselves off to points of view they don’t agree with. At the moment when young minds are supposed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, they are answering challenges to their beliefs with anger and violence instead of facts and reason.”

USA Today does a good job in my opinion, moving this debate past the more simply-defined concept of the validity of free speech. This isn’t about free speech; it isn’t about what a person is not allowed to say.

It’s too avoidant to characterize the current college campus debate as questioning the right to individual verbal expression.

This dialogue is about an unwillingness to entertain opposing opinion.

I admit: entertaining opposing opinion is not the easiest to do. And so many who long ago left the college campus still struggle with said willingness.

So what’s happening on the college campus — which I assume includes some very smart people — seems an exaggerated manifestation of what we’re seeing on other societal avenues.

For some reason, a perceived growing number of people see the existence of opposing opinion as a threat. We can’t entertain it… we can’t listen to it… we can’t wrestle with any validity. We must resist any willingness to allow the opinion to exist. Here then, we see a stark contrast between intellect and wisdom… as a lot of bright people aren’t acting very wise.

I appreciate what Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in response. “Let her speak… If you don’t like it, don’t show up.” Note that Warren is no fan of Coulter’s, but knows the wisdom in allowing opposing opinion to exist.

In fact, perhaps what I appreciate most about this debate is the common ground crossing all societal, political lines. Warren, Bernie Sanders… Coulter… all seemingly hailing from a bit of the radical, political fringe… from the left and the right…

Agreed.

The polar-opposite, ideological, political fringe agreed.

Said Sanders, “I don’t like this. I don’t like it. Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

Exactly. This isn’t about free speech. This is about silencing those with whom one disagrees.

When we advocate for silencing, we simultaneously sacrifice wisdom.

We sacrifice wisdom when we are no longer willing to wrestle with the validity of opposing opinion.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

bugged & unpopular

SONY DSC

Calling this a post a perspective on the freedom of speech isn’t entirely accurate. That’s a bit too simplified.

Do we believe in it? Do we not? Said freedom is embedded in our Constitution, although U.S. courts have often struggled to define what it means and what it does not. The legal definition is: “The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.” We don’t have a right to scream about a fictional fire in a crowded theater, but we do have the right to express the unpopular. The challenge is that we don’t like the unpopular.

In recent days, two key freedom of speech scenarios have received ample attention (although true, one could make the case as to whether such are so deserving).

First… as previously referenced, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has refused to stand for the National Anthem during preseason games. Said Kaepernick, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Kaepernick rose to fame when only a few months after his first NFL start, as a second year player, he led his team to the Super Bowl. San Francisco then had high hopes for the young, articulate star. However, in the three years since, after signing a multi-million dollar contract, questionable behavior and poor play have led a lesser role on the team for him. He is (was) no longer the focal point of their team.

And second… the University of Chicago sent a letter to all incoming freshmen, quite different from the more stereotypical, anodyne letters sent to new students across the country. Said the Dean of Students, John Ellison, “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Both Colin Kaepernick and the University of Chicago are advocating for free speech. It looks different, manifests itself differently, prompts different angles and questions, but both are advocating for the right of a person to express their beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.

Both are also advocating for what to many, may be perceived, as the unpopular.

Here’s the bottom line of today’s post (… and this is why we began by opining that it wouldn’t be accurate to label today’s post as simply questioning the freedom of speech; there’s more to it than that)…

I think most of us believe in free speech — albeit only to a point. And that point isn’t the crowded theater and the fictional “fire” chant; the point is that expressions of free speech are unpopular — and often we want that squelched.

I’ll admit… Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner” bugs me. Our anthem isn’t about policemen; it isn’t about race, ethnicity or religion. It’s about what American servicemen and women have defended for centuries — here, there, from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. It’s about what other people have sacrificed for you and me.

However, as much I believe Kaepernick’s behavior is disrespectful, I believe in his freedom to express his opinion in a way that hurts no one (but potentially himself). It is precisely because of our honorable servicemen and women that Kaepernick has that freedom.

Others, no doubt, are bugged by the Chicago school’s stance… how dare they! … it’s not politically correct… it’s insensitive!

I agree. I agree that expressing unpopular opinion can be insensitive. Insensitive, however, does not necessitate the extinguishing of freedom — not in Chicago, not in San Francisco.

Granted, it still might bug me.

Respectfully…
AR