Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee

February 24, 2005
Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee
The limits of liberal love for freewheeling debate
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers

The recent flap over University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who in an essay after 9/11 called the terrorist victims "little Eichmanns," generated a drama as stylized as a Japanese Noh play. Indignant conservatives railed against leftist professors and demanded that Churchill be fired; equally indignant liberals countered with rousing defenses of the academic freedom and free speech they accused conservatives of undermining. We had seen this same drama before, in the days after 9/11 when numerous academics made equally stupid remarks with precisely the same results. The outrage had little effect then, and this time around has merely resulted in turning an academic mediocrity into a poster-boy for academic freedom, not to mention giving him a media megaphone his tediously predictable ideas could never deliver.

In the Churchill case, moreover, the liberals have it right: his dismissal on the grounds of his opinions would violate what should be the university's commitment to free-wheeling speech no matter whose ox is gored and no matter how creepy the person spouting off. After all, commitment to principle sometimes requires that we hold our noses and apply it in cases we'd rather not. And given the liberal dominance of the academy, you can rest assured that once you go down that road of firing professors because of what they say, the chances of finding a conservative in higher education would be about the same as Lot's chances of finding five righteous men in Sodom.

The better point for conservatives to make is to hammer liberals for the rank hypocrisy most of them display in their noisy defenses of free speech and open debate and challenges to orthodoxy. For of course, such a love of unfettered discussion applies only as long as the tenets of faith in the liberal church are left alone. Even scientists aren't immune to intellectual gate-keeping to protect their political or ideological prejudices: the virulent, sometimes hysterical attacks on critics of Darwin or on proponents of intelligent design surely violate science's obligation to test all theories and to entertain all criticisms of them in order to get as close to the truth as possible.

Or consider the trouble Harvard president Lawrence Summers recently got into when he speculated that innate sex differences in certain cognitive abilities might be one factor in explaining why there are fewer women in some scientific disciplines. Such a hypothesis is unexceptional among scientists studying cognitive abilities, who have documented numerous statistical differences between men and women in performing certain mental tasks, with men being better at some and women being better at others. It is not beyond the pale to consider that maybe the mental abilities necessary for some scientific disciplines are not as widely distributed among women as they are among men.

The reaction to Summers' comments, however, on the part of some faculty and media pundits was characterized not by the rational thought and intellectual curiosity we expect from our public thinkers, but by hysteria and anger that someone in Summers' position dared to say something that ran counter to politically correct prejudice. The fact is, one of the biggest orthodoxies on the academic block is the superstition that all observable differences between the sexes are due to socialization, particularly discrimination. On this article of faith are founded most of the professional activity of so-called feminist academics, not to mention the demands for institutional power and privilege (grants, research funds, faculty positions, etc.) needed to undo the baleful effects of this demonic socialization on the part of parents and schools. But once you start entertaining the notion that there are fewer women in some sciences because the pool of women with the necessary abilities is smaller than the pool of men, then the rationale for much of that power and privilege begins to look shaky.

Unfortunately, this type of ideological policing of intellectual speech is all too typical of our colleges and universities, those privileged spaces where the search for truth and the airing of ideas are supposed to be as uninhibited as possible. But consider what happened at Rhode Island College to a student who questioned his professor about what the student thought was a liberal bias in the Social Work program. The professor responded, "I revel in my biases," and added, "I think anyone who consistently holds antithetical views to those that are espoused by the profession might ask themselves whether social work is the profession for them." The ideologically slanted assignments required for a grade confirmed the professor's delight in his biases, and he punished work, no matter the quality, that ran counter to his own prejudices. Sadly, the only thing remarkable about this episode is the professor's willingness to admit that success in his course depends on passing a political litmus test (go to www.thefire.org for more on this story).

The public anger directed at those who challenge cherished orthodoxies—along with the attendant demands for dismissal, for groveling apologies on the part of the offender, or for increases in funding for the institutional caretakers of politically correct received wisdom—increases the chance that some ideas will rarely get a public hearing. Recently it was reported that a new strain of drug-resistant AIDS had appeared in a New York man who admitted to hundreds of unprotected sexual encounters fueled by crystal methamphetamine, a pattern of behavior typical of many gay men. The subsequent commentary focused on everything from the need for more outreach programs to teach the value of safe sex, to demands for gay marriage to lessen the esteem-lowering discrimination that supposedly causes such risky behavior. But no one in the mainstream media dared to speculate that gay predatory promiscuity and drug use—the same constellation of behaviors that 25 years ago fueled the AIDS crisis in the first place—perhaps bespeak a type of neurosis inherent in male homosexuality.

No one in the information elite wants even to mention the unpleasant possibility that a significant number of gay men engage in lethal compulsive sex not because of discrimination or lack of safe-sex billboards, but because homosexuality per se is a form of dysfunction, even though this is what most of the human race has thought for ages. Those presumably same-sex-loving Greeks certainly thought so, repeatedly characterizing passive homosexual activity as a type of compulsive behavior, even Plato calling it an "itch." Maybe this hypothesis is wrong, but shouldn't the idea be considered and the evidence for it be explored, given the importance of this issue? Just you try, and see how quickly the liberal love of challenging orthodoxy and engaging in freewheeling debate suddenly disappears.

It's not hard to see why. To consider homosexuality a type of dysfunction runs counter the prejudices of the liberal elite and the cheery propaganda of movies and television shows like Will and Grace, in which homosexuality is presented as a variety of normal human behavior no more exceptional than hair or eye color. And questioning this assumption opens one up to charges of insensitivity and bigotry. So the discussion is carried on, if at all, in the shadowy recesses of professional journals and publications, while the media and popular culture continue to peddle their ideologically driven view of gay identity.

As these examples show, for many right-thinking liberals (and alas for some conservatives too), free speech is a good thing—as long as certain topics are avoided and the feelings of certain constituencies are protected. And political ideology and prejudice will determine what those topics and who those constituencies are. Remember that art show in New York a few years back that displayed a picture showing the Virgin Mary festooned with elephant dung? Those who protested the show were branded oafish philistines who didn't understand the "subversive" nature of art, the way it should "challenge" our most cherished orthodoxies. Yet imagine if instead of the Virgin Mary it had been Martin Luther King defaced in that way. Suddenly the value of "subversion" and "challenges" would've disappeared and the curator and artist both compelled to engage in self-flagellating apologetics for their racial insensitivity.

The whole point of free speech is to get at the truth, a process that often requires airing all kinds of troubling, unpopular, or even offensive ideas. Limiting this process by putting some topics out of bounds means that the truth will be harder to find. Nor should the possibility of hurt feelings prohibit the expression of ideas or subvert the search for truth. We all learn as children that the truth hurts; that's why we all tell so many lies and entertain so many gratifying delusions. But in a democracy, where the citizens are called upon to make decisions on a great variety of issues, an open discussion of ideas directed towards finding the truth is essential. Once you limit that search by letting some people's feelings or sensibilities or ideologies trump the truth, you've made it much more difficult for truth to emerge, and much more likely for dangerous lies, myths, and half-truths to dominate the public discourse.

It is precisely this importance of truth for democracy that makes it necessary that we demand an accounting from all those who talk the talk of free speech but, when it comes to their own ideological prejudices, refuse to walk the walk. Pointing out this hypocrisy is a much more effective use of our time than railing against a hustler like Ward Churchill.

There is a difference between free speech and telling lies that damage others.

The article is very good. However the Summers flap is not totally about a "provocative" remark. Sure some wacky woman are out enforcing political correctness but the anti Summers movement is much deeper, something the media has not reported Summers is hated by the faculty fo several reasons: he put pressure on a black icon (Cornell West) to fulfill his academic duties, he objected to the plan to divest Harvard investment in Israel and he is moving part of Harvard over the Charles River and the faculty doesn't want to leave "the womb" of Cambridge. The female stuff is just part of the attack. The media should report it!

Ward Churchill can say anything he wants anywhere he wants...just not with my tax dollars supporting him...his employer can fire him.....as a state sponsered institution..he should be gone....you won't find a counter voice at the University of Colorado..its 95% leftist....so for diversity's sake..fire Ward and hire Rush Limbaugh...it will never happen

...you can rest assured that once you go down that road of firing professors because of what they say, the chances of finding a conservative in higher education would be about the same as Lot's chances of finding five righteous men in Sodom.

That answer is fine and dandy for those who want Churchill fired for what he said. What about those of us who think he should be fired for attaining tenure on false pretenses and without the normal requisite review?

BUMP!

Along the same lines, professors are paid to lecture - their speech sure isn't free there.
Students in these indoctrination classes have to conform to what Prof says or get bad grades.

You can say anything you want in this country, but you still have to accept the consequences if what you say is a lie or in some other way harms someone.

That is why there are laws against perjury. You can lie if you want, but then you might spend some time in jail.

once you go down that road of firing professors because of what they say, the chances of finding a conservative in higher education would be about the same as Lot's chances of finding five righteous men in Sodom.

----------------------------------

Since the chances of finding a conservative in higher education are already slim to none, I do not agree w/VDH on this one. He is advocating academic dhimmitude, IMO. Eventually, the radicals in academe will die or be forced to retire. The rise of conservatism among university students would appear to indicate that eventually there will be more of them in various university departments and at some point, there will be enough of them to elect conservative department chairs and to hire more conservatives. Until that time, conservative students can keep up the pressure by continuing to criticize & publicly expose radical professors and to boycott their classes.

Well put.

Along the same lines, professors are paid to lecture - their speech sure isn't free there. Students in these indoctrination classes have to conform to what Prof says or get bad grades.

That's life.

Yup. Attendance isn't mandatory.