By Ralph R. Reiland on 6.27.06 @ 12:04AM
Where's George Orwell when you really need him?
Students went into protest mode at The New School in New York
City when the university's president, Bob Kerrey, former governor
of Nebraska and a former United States Senator, invited Senator
John McCain to address the graduates at this year's commencement
ceremony.
Fuming that someone from a different political perspective would
be speaking, students circulated a petition to get McCain's
invitation revoked.
"Senator McCain's crime appears to be that he is a
conservative," reported Niall Stanage in the New York
Observer. "The protesters' absurd rationale is that having the
Senator at the ceremony is not compatible with the institution's
commitment to freethinking."
Defined in undiluted Orwellian terms by those seeking to bar
McCain from campus, "freethinking" means that everyone's free to
think in the same way, free to become all the same, ideologically,
adhering to a groupthink straightjacket that can't tolerate hearing
from a semi-conservative politician for half an hour.
Finding it "extremely distasteful and hypocritical to allow
McCain to speak," Brittany Charlton, the vice chairman of the
University Student Senate, told the New York Times that
McCain was "someone who does not value the ideals we have
consistently been taught in our education."
The "leader" of The New School protest added that McCain
shouldn't be allowed to speak because "In all of our classes we're
taught the value of inclusion of all people." One would think that
"inclusion" might include an occasional appearance of someone who
might differ on an issue or two.
One wonders how many students at The New School ever had a good
classroom discussion about Voltaire's famous declaration on free
speech and censorship: "I may disagree with what you have to say,
but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Did these students ever talk about what Salman Rushdie meant
when he said "Free speech is life itself"? Do they know a fatwa
ordering Rushdie's execution and the killing of his publishers was
proclaimed in 1989 on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the
leader of Iran at the time, as punishment for his writing a
"blasphemous" novel?
McCain ran into the same problem at Columbia University, with
students circulating petitions to keep him off campus because he'd
beforehand given the graduation address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty
University, thereby, according to the protesters, allegedly
flashing a sign of approval to Falwell's brand of politics.
With any consistency in thinking, these aggrieved Columbia
students might well have concluded that McCain, by agreeing to
speak at Columbia, was flashing a sign of approval to their
school's particular brand of politics, except for the fact that
Columbia and Liberty University are poles apart politically and
McCain spoke at both.
The easy answer, one the upset students at Columbia appear to
have missed, is that McCain, likely to be making a run for the
White House in the next presidential election, was simply looking
for some free exposure during commencement season.
Worrying that he has theocracy up his sleeve because he spoke at
Liberty University makes about as much sense as worrying that he's
got a secret plan in the works to outlaw meat if he ever shows up
to give the keynote address at the American Vegan Society.
In any case, what's disquieting about these efforts to silence a
speaker isn't the lack of rational argument among these students,
or their inconsistencies in making their case.
What's worse is that they seem not to have learned, after
spending years in higher education, that censorship is far more
dangerous than free speech, that we're more likely to find the
truth through freedom of expression and open-mindedness, through
free inquiry and an uncensored exchange of ideas, than through the
suppression of ideas and the repression of free speech.
The idea that people should be silenced so that they won't be
able to say anything that might be "offensive" to someone else, the
concept that the individual must submit to a groupthink orthodoxy,
the idea that the individual must submit to what's best for
everyone else, for the collective, represent direct strikes at the
heart of American democracy and individual liberty.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible," wrote
19th century British social reformer Charles Bradlaugh. "Better a
thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The
abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the
people."
topics:
Education, John McCain, Law, Iran, NATO