- Moderator
- #1
Free Speech
You have a right to walk away.
You have a right to respond.
But there is no right to expect to be protected from it.
I've been thinking about this, particularly as it relates to higher education. Higher education represents a radical departure from grammar school. It's a time when young people are struggling with adulthood, with defining who they are, with fighting for what they believe is right or wrong, with great fervor. A passion for justice. How can you argue with this? These are the young people who went down to Mississippi and registered black to vote during the civil rights.
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
But would they have done if they had been protected from the diverse opinions of that era? How can you really test your faith in your ideas and beliefs if they are never exposed to fire? How can you ever understand the other side(s) if are never challenged? Maybe some long held belief is broken and you realize that the other guy isn't a racist or an ignorant redneck or a terrorist after you listened to a talk?
But the trend lately seems to be to protect young people from exactly that and to create echo chambers within our universities. I think this is a bad trend, and it flies in the face of what higher education is meant to be - expanding into the world. Banning speakers, purely on ideology or due to protests is not the way to go. Nor is preventing protest against because that too is free speech. We should not be "protected" from this, because it's a false protection. It deceives into thinking our ideas are universal and unchallangable.
There are two incidences that speak to this. One is at the University where I work. The Young Republican's Club invited Milo Yiannopoulis to speak. Milo certainly represents a different view. There were protests (which angered him) - but protests are valid. He was allowed to speak. Part of his powerpoint show involved a viscous attack on one faculty member who alledgedly targeted conservative students. That was not cool in my opinion, but he wasn't stopped. He gave his entire talk. Our president sent an apology to staff and faculty over that - but not regret over allowing him to speak. He's maintained an open attitude towards a diversity of speakers and the rights of those to protest as long as there was no violence. That is as it should be. Many people were very upset, particularly those of the LGBT community. But, as another (liberal) faculty member pointed out - 20 years ago, it would have been the LGBT community who's voices were stifled. We can't stifle voices.
The other incident occured some years ago. UNC had a freshman reading program where all new incoming freshmen were assigned to read one book, that they would subsequently discuss. It was a great program. The book chosen usually spoke to some contemporary problem. It created bonds among the freshmen who were entering a new and sometimes scary point in their lives. It began the process of opening the door to new ideas. One year they chose the Quran. Given the climate of post 9/11, conflicting attitudes towards Muslims were the norm, as well as a general lack of knowledge about them. It should have been a good choice but the outcry was immense. INDOCTRINATION. They demand that if you are going to use the Quran you have to use the bible. Never mind that the discussion was not faith, but understanding of another - pro and con - through the understanding of their primary religious text - no one was willing to hear that and UNC got quite a beating for it.
We shouldn't be doing this. We liberals can't be stifling conservative voices just becuase we don't like the message. We need to hear them - not retreat into our "safe places" with our fingers in our ears calling them racists, homophobes, mysogonists. And conservatives, you as well - you can't use your political bully pulpit and insist that alternate views are indoctrination.
We have to allow ALL ideas to flow through - an if we feel they are wrong, well - speak up. In a counter talk. By asking questions and demanding answers. By peacefully protesting. But don't stifle the voices because higher education is all about hearing those voices and making one's own determination.
You have a right to walk away.
You have a right to respond.
But there is no right to expect to be protected from it.
I've been thinking about this, particularly as it relates to higher education. Higher education represents a radical departure from grammar school. It's a time when young people are struggling with adulthood, with defining who they are, with fighting for what they believe is right or wrong, with great fervor. A passion for justice. How can you argue with this? These are the young people who went down to Mississippi and registered black to vote during the civil rights.
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
But would they have done if they had been protected from the diverse opinions of that era? How can you really test your faith in your ideas and beliefs if they are never exposed to fire? How can you ever understand the other side(s) if are never challenged? Maybe some long held belief is broken and you realize that the other guy isn't a racist or an ignorant redneck or a terrorist after you listened to a talk?
But the trend lately seems to be to protect young people from exactly that and to create echo chambers within our universities. I think this is a bad trend, and it flies in the face of what higher education is meant to be - expanding into the world. Banning speakers, purely on ideology or due to protests is not the way to go. Nor is preventing protest against because that too is free speech. We should not be "protected" from this, because it's a false protection. It deceives into thinking our ideas are universal and unchallangable.
There are two incidences that speak to this. One is at the University where I work. The Young Republican's Club invited Milo Yiannopoulis to speak. Milo certainly represents a different view. There were protests (which angered him) - but protests are valid. He was allowed to speak. Part of his powerpoint show involved a viscous attack on one faculty member who alledgedly targeted conservative students. That was not cool in my opinion, but he wasn't stopped. He gave his entire talk. Our president sent an apology to staff and faculty over that - but not regret over allowing him to speak. He's maintained an open attitude towards a diversity of speakers and the rights of those to protest as long as there was no violence. That is as it should be. Many people were very upset, particularly those of the LGBT community. But, as another (liberal) faculty member pointed out - 20 years ago, it would have been the LGBT community who's voices were stifled. We can't stifle voices.
The other incident occured some years ago. UNC had a freshman reading program where all new incoming freshmen were assigned to read one book, that they would subsequently discuss. It was a great program. The book chosen usually spoke to some contemporary problem. It created bonds among the freshmen who were entering a new and sometimes scary point in their lives. It began the process of opening the door to new ideas. One year they chose the Quran. Given the climate of post 9/11, conflicting attitudes towards Muslims were the norm, as well as a general lack of knowledge about them. It should have been a good choice but the outcry was immense. INDOCTRINATION. They demand that if you are going to use the Quran you have to use the bible. Never mind that the discussion was not faith, but understanding of another - pro and con - through the understanding of their primary religious text - no one was willing to hear that and UNC got quite a beating for it.
We shouldn't be doing this. We liberals can't be stifling conservative voices just becuase we don't like the message. We need to hear them - not retreat into our "safe places" with our fingers in our ears calling them racists, homophobes, mysogonists. And conservatives, you as well - you can't use your political bully pulpit and insist that alternate views are indoctrination.
We have to allow ALL ideas to flow through - an if we feel they are wrong, well - speak up. In a counter talk. By asking questions and demanding answers. By peacefully protesting. But don't stifle the voices because higher education is all about hearing those voices and making one's own determination.
Last edited:
