To be honest, I
have not heard Milo Yiannopuolos, but, based on what I have read about him, I
doubt that I would agree with anything he says.
I can understand why many students at the colleges where he has been
scheduled to speak would be dead set against the flamboyant writer for the
alt-right Breitbart News website who proudly supports Trump and has been denounced
for propagating racism, misogyny and anti-Islam views.
Still, he shouldn’t
be stopped from speaking, just as I shouldn’t be stopped from expressing my
views. What’s more, he shouldn’t be
stopped by protesters rioting, throwing rocks and concrete bars, setting fires
and causing damage, as happened a few nights ago at U.C Berkeley, resulting in
the campus being locked down. (At least
someone wasn’t shot, as happened when Yiannopuolos was scheduled to speak at an
university in Washington a few weeks ago.) To say the least, it’s not constructive,
accomplishes nothing. It’s stupid. It’s certainly not going high when they go
low.
I happened to write
about this for my Claremont Courier column which comes out today and which I
include here.
A
STRONG ARGUMENT FOR STRONG SPEECH
Should a college allow a parade on its campus in honor of Hitler?
The young man, most likely a student, probably thought he was asking a
trick question, something to stump or trap the speaker who had so
authoritatively and confidently advocated free speech on college campuses. Surely, such a heinous, obnoxious celebration
wouldn’t be tolerated. He had all but
sauntered up to the microphone during the Q and A period with a grin, accepting
the invitation to ask any and all questions as a challenge.
“Yes.” The answer came quickly, without hesitation. This wasn’t a trick question at all. It may well have been typical, even expected,
in such an audience.
The young man was clearly taken aback. It was obvious that he wasn’t
expecting this answer, given so decisively.
“Thanks,” he said and began to walk away.
But no doubt the clear-cut reply was
a challenge. The young man couldn’t just
walk away. He quickly turned back around
and asked, “Why?” issuing another challenge.
Geoffrey R. Stone is used to such challenges. That much was clear when the University of
Chicago Law School professor and former law clerk to U.S Supreme Court Justice
William J. Brennan spoke two weeks ago at Pomona College’s Bridges Hall of
Music. The talk, titled “Free Speech on
Campus: A Challenge for Our Time,” came late on Friday afternoon, a jolt
capping an otherwise quiet first week of the Spring semester at the colleges.
“What about a parade in support of Planned Parenthood?” Mr. Stone countered. After all, he pointed out, the agency has
been condemned as one that “murders the unborn,” as it provides abortions. No doubt some would find this feting most
offensive and unacceptable and that a college should have no part in allowing
it.
Or what about students staging parade in support of gay and transgender
rights? Or financial aid for
undocumented students? Or ending
affirmative action, with the intent that color and gender shouldn’t
matter?
No doubt some students, as well as faculty and staff members, will be
offended if one of these parades were held on campus. Not to mention people in
town. No doubt some will feel ignored or snubbed. Some will feel threatened, even
endangered.
But is feeling threatened the same as being threatened?
To Mr. Stone, who chaired the
University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression, whose statement has
been embraced by other colleges and universities and endorsed by the Foundation
for Individual Rights in Education as a model for faculty and student speech
protection on campus, the distinction is critical. There is a very real and hugely important difference
between feeling threatened and being threatened.
Of course, a college has an obligation to protect its students and
personnel, to do everything it can in an effort to keep them from being
harmed. Mr. Stone wouldn’t argue against that. But, in his talk that was part of the
on-going “Free Speech in a Dangerous World” lecture series, he made the point
that a college isn’t obliged to protect its students from ideas and views that
are different and challenging, that are perhaps threatening.
More than that, Mr. Stone argued
that a college should not protect its students and faculty from new and challenging
ideas. He maintained that, indeed,
exposure to new and challenging ideas is a fundamental purpose of college.
As Mr. Stone explained, this is a
relatively new concept, established in the last several hundred years. Until two or three hundred years ago,
colleges and universities were not about being exposed to and debating different,
diverging ideas and concepts. They were
operated by institutions such as the church and were focused on indoctrination
and training in certain beliefs and world views. Exploration of other ideas, especially those
that caused questioning and doubt was the last thing these institutions wanted.
And they were very much only opened to a privileged few, seen as prime
candidates to promulgate these certain ideas and views – certainly not to
all.
But now this concept of a college of a place where a wide-open exposure
to and robust exchange of new and different ideas is being questioned and, in a
surprising number of cases, scaled back.
It is ironic that, as Mr. Stoned
outlined, this scaling back is being initiated by students and some faculty,
with demands for safe spaces, trigger warnings and the like. Locally, there was
a request last year at Pitzer College for a housing option for only African-American
students, and an annual reggae festival was canceled in the Fall, also at
Pitzer, after some claimed that it was cultural appropriation. Mr.
Stone presented an alarming list of recent cases where speakers have
been disinvited and students have been sanctioned for expressing controversial
ideas and beliefs at universities and colleges across the U.S.
Why is this happening now? The professor and author of the award-winning
book on constitutional law, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime,
suggested a few possible reasons. One is
that this is a generation of students brought up by “helicopter parents,”
over-protected, if not spoiled, with the belief that everyone is a winner,
deserving of an award. Another is that there is much more awareness of
oppression and discrimination and of those who have been oppressed and
discriminated against.
Mr. Stone stressed that this
scaling back, whatever the reasons for it happening, is a swinging back of the
pendulum and is detrimental, even dangerous.
He reiterated that gay and black and other minority students must be
kept safe from harm, but he also emphasized that safe spaces and trigger warnings
do not prepare students for life after college, “the real world,” where there
are usually not safe spaces. Instead,
they should be allowed to protest – and, better yet, rebut – an offensive talk
that has been allowed.
Some may argue that protesting accomplishes nothing – look at those who
belittled the recent women’s marches – but it is certainly more fair hopefully
constructive than a controversial, perhaps offensive speaker being disinvited
or not allowed to speak, as has happened in recent years at various colleges
and universities.
I don’t know if Mr. Stone’s
speech being scheduled on the day of President Trump’s inauguration was more
than mere coincidence, but it did strike me as most appropriate. It seems to me that too many people have
enclosed themselves in safe spaces, listening to and engaging with only those
who are like-minded. That people with
different experiences and views – both liberal and conservative – are not
talking to or even accepting each other is likely a big part of why we have
ended up with “the Donald,” with his bigoted, fear-based and fearsome policies,
as president. It’s why there was such an acrimonious, raucous scene at last
month’s City Council discussion on a proposed ordinance promoting
diversity. And, what’s more, it is why
we now have “alternative facts.”
