The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Free speech lessons for liberals

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Ryan Masse:

Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)

by Ryan Masse

Thursday, October 26, 2006

There was a time when liberals were great champions of free speech. They were a group known for fiercely defending the First Amendment while approaching issues with an open mind and always allowing for dissent.

Or at least that's what I'm told. You can excuse me for being a bit incredulous, because if classic liberals truly were staunch defenders of free speech, they seem to be a rapidly diminishing species. Or if they are still around — and I suspect they are — their presence sure hasn't been felt much lately. Instead, the left on today's university campuses has been hijacked by a decidedly free-speech-loathing faction, and events around the country in the last month demonstrate their frightening and growing influence better than ever.

The nadir of the trend, certainly in terms of publicity, came at Columbia University earlier this month. Members of the Minutemen immigration reform group, speaking in an auditorium at the behest of Columbia's College Republicans, were interrupted by protesters who stormed the stage, unfurled banners and refused to let speakers carry on with their presentation. Following the mini-riot that ensued, the protesters anointed themselves the sole arbiters of what speech is allowable on campus, justifying their actions by claiming, "The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration."

Trouncing on the rights of others to hold their own beliefs at Columbia is not exclusively the realm of hooligan students, however. The Ivy League school's administration also does its part to stifle viewpoints it doesn't like via the requirements it imposes on graduate students in the education department, who must display a "commitment to social justice" and recognize that "social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility and individual responsibility."

In other words, if a student doesn't buy the politically correct notion that society is laden with inequity and deliberate discrimination, he or she can forget about becoming a teacher. Ironically, Columbia's qualifications condemn anyone displaying "merit, social mobility and individual responsibility," all indicators of ambition surely inherent in graduate students at an Ivy League institution.

If that isn't disturbing enough, just head west to Michigan, where the Wolverine State will decide whether to ban the use of racial preferences by the government — including public university admissions decisions — in a referendum this fall. The effort, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) and modeled after similar legislation successfully enacted in California and Washington, has spawned the dubious anti-referendum group known as the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN for short.

Living up to its name (with the exception of civilized dialogue, which apparently is not a legitimate "means"), BAMN has specialized in silencing speakers who dare voice support for the referendum.

When the Michigan Board of Canvassers met to certify the measure for November's ballot, BAMN stormed the board's offices, jumping around and overturning tables. When Jennifer Gratz, the chief proponent of the referendum (and for you Supreme Court buffs, the plaintiff in the landmark admissions case Gratz v. Bollinger) spoke about MCRI at the University of Michigan earlier this year, BAMN was there to shout her down with chants of "fraud," "liar" and "racist," according to The Michigan Daily. (Ignore, at least for the sake of this article, the paradox of calling someone who seeks to end racial preferences a "racist"; instead, just focus on BAMN's dogged efforts to not let anyone dissent against its opinions.)

And when BAMN desires an occasional break from stifling the speech of MCRI-backers, they find other forums for their thuggery. Earlier this month, a conservative group at the University of Michigan held a speech calling for immigration reform, garnering the predictable visit from BAMN in the process. Hollering over the voice of the speaker, BAMN intended, as a member told The Michigan Daily, to "shut [the speech] down. They can't have that game here."

Finally, let us head further west to our home state of Wisconsin. The affront to free speech on campus here does not employ tactics as egregious as those in New York and Michigan, and in some ways the ordeal is quite silly.

Yet it's still troubling: a Marquette graduate student in the philosophy department recently became the center of controversy for a quote he posted on his office door by the humorist Dave Barry: "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

The chairman of the philosophy department, James South, determined the quote to be "patently offensive" and ordered it removed. That he could arrive at such a conclusion about an innocuous satirical barb from a humorist espousing basic libertarian philosophy is astounding — indeed, it is a wonder Mr. South can function in society if such statements shock his conscience so much.

Nonetheless, Marquette is well within its rights to regulate what employees are allowed to post on their office doors. The problem is that the Jesuit university has no clear guidelines concerning what is and isn't acceptable, and furthermore, the philosophy student claims other department members have posted materials proclaiming political views on their doors without punishment.

Hence, Marquette is guilty of blatant viewpoint discrimination, disallowing certain speech solely because it runs counter to the progressive agenda.

And there you have it. A quick jaunt around a few states reveals far too many leftists on campuses — whether students or administrators — to be so arrogant about the correctness of their opinions that they see no need for dissent. It is intolerance, plain and simple, and for those who revere free speech rights, as classic liberals do, it is an attitude that is downright "patently offensive."

Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is the editorial board chairman of The Badger Herald.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 7:28am):

Civil disobedience: Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives. The command may be disobeyed because it is seen as itself illegitimate or immoral, or because it is a symbol of other policies which are opposed. Civil disobedience may be practiced by individuals, groups, or masses of people.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 7:37am):

These are the people who had NO PROBLEM supporting a President who sued America to stop counting what even the USSC said were legal votes by creating a false 12-12 deadline that doesnt exist anywhere in law...Even the USSC stated that their ruling cannot be used as a basis for law in ANY OTHER CASE because even they knew it was not based on law, but rather in violation of federal, State and Constitutional election laws and guidelines...there were at least 6 Constitutional violations allowed in the 2000 "election."
These are the same people who support a President who DOES NOT allow free speech ANYWHERE he speaks in that he creates "free speech zones" BLOCKS away from the actual event, who had to elederly ladies in their 70's arrested for inciting a riot because they held up two pieces of 8-1/2" by 11" papers speaking the threatening message of "Equal rights for gays," after they were assaulted by the crowd and pushed down the the fllor.
These are the same people who supports a President who had students at Ohio University threatened with arrest and not being given their degrees if they staged a silent protest by turning their backs when he spoke at their graduation in 2004.
These are the same people who support a President who has suspended Habeus Corpus and privacy rights in which ACLU lawyers are now stating he (Bush) committed at least 20 felonies.
These are the same people who support a war that was started without ANY substantiated or credible evidence, and who DELIBERATELY LIED to start this war, repeatedly, blatantly and to this very day. How many "free speech rights have the dead US soldiers and civilians now?
The list goes on...but i compare these right wing supporters to someone who is turning the other way while people are murdered and instead throws the book at a J-walker...the perception of reality in their reasoning is non-existant...

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 8:09am):

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, Ryan, but the first amendment only protects citizens' right to free speech from the actions of the state, not private institutions. At Columbia University, a private institution, no such right exists. The liberals in question there may have been foolhardy, but in no way were their actions in opposition to the first amendment.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 8:35am):

I would be careful to lump the Minute Men exchange in with all other liberal doctrine. Most of the figure heads for the liberal movement (Franken, Stewert, et al.) came down pretty hard on the "protesters" at that said Columbia event. Most people who supported their cause really distained how they expressed their opinion because it made them look like buffoons. The difference is that if one liberal doesn't like what another liberal is saying, he will say so. If one conservative says something stupid every other conservative tried to toe the company line even if they know they are expousing hate and ignorance (Rush Limbaugh supporters come to mind...)

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 8:44am):

Any comment that is submitted which also questions why a non-student (Ryan Masse) is the chairman of the editorial board of the BH mysteriously never makes it onto the list of comments. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm What does that say?

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 9:40am):

I'm a Centralist that leans to the left, and I can't stand when other people of the left claim to be champions of free speech and other rights shout down speakers they disagree with. Now if you want to go to a speech to protest, wear a shirt or hold a sign, but be respectful. The extremists on both the left and right are doing more damage to our democracy then foreign terrorists or anyone else. Until those of us rational thinking people stand up, and demand honest debate, in an open forum the extremists on both sides will weld on checked power.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 1:12pm):

I agree that liberals today are in many ways abandoning a lot of principles of individual freedom such as free press. But it is hardly a problem that can be attributed to only Liberals, but rather one of the main problems of American politics. The notion of individual freedom that supposedly the US is a great example of, is hardly found here at all. This country sucks, at least the democrats will admit it.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 2:13pm):

Dear Ryan,

Lesson for liberals? Come on....are you serious? You need a lesson in argumentative writing. If you want to tackle the free speech issue, why not look at the shady actions of both sides? Plus, ending your little tour of campuses with Marquette as an example of the left's hypocritical stance on free speech is a joke:
"Hence, Marquette is guilty of blatant viewpoint discrimination, disallowing certain speech solely because it runs counter to the progressive agenda."
Since when does Marquette have a progressive agenda? Last time I checked, Marquette is considered a conservative school. If Marquette's agenda is so progressive why would they not allow the "Vagina Monologues" to be performed on campus? Your argument is hollow . . . . .

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 3:11pm):

Damn progressive agenda at Marquette!

http://www.jsonline.com/story/?id=406790

Masse, please don't insult your readers' intelligence....

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 8:33pm):

First, Mr. Masse plays part in publishing the Danish cartoon last year in support of free speech. Then he condemns Barrett for his radical views and thinks he should be fired. Now, he thinks liberals need free speech lessons. I think he could use a lesson in what the word HYPOCRISY means.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 9:01pm):

The group that interrupted the Minutemen's speech numbered only about 20, and it is far from clear that all -- or even most -- of them were Columbia students. It makes no sense to judge the administration of any university by the actions of its students, and this is all the more true where those students represent less than 1/1000th of the total enrollment.

It is also worth noting that the reason what would have been just an obnoxious but otherwise peaceful protest turned into a "mini-riot" was that one of the Minutemen's supporters attacked one of the protesters. (See http://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2006/10/20/News/Photos.Indicate.Identity.Of.Kicker-2379620.shtml) Ryan seems to have uncritically accepted the media's (read: Fox's) presumption that it was the students who became violent, but the evidence is quite to the contrary.

Columbia's Teachers College (which is a legally separate entity and is not controlled in any way by the Columbia administration) expects a "commitment to social justice" but does not try to tell students what "social justice" means. That conservatives feel threatened by the term says more about them than it does about Columbia.

Each of us has our own ideas about what is just, and there's nothing wrong with a school that wants students who are committed to helping make the world more just. Perhaps Ryan would be happier if the school was in different to whether its students care about social justice, But I've never heard of a college or university that takes such an extreme position.

Finally, the statement that "social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility and individual responsibility" does not imply that social inequality and discrimination are *equivalent* to the ideas of merit or responsibility. Instead, he points out that the latter are concepts are often invoked by those who perpetrate the former in order to rationalize their actions. This is not an attack on meritocracy or social mobility; in fact, it is a defense of those principles against those who would co-opt them in order to deny opportunities rather than preserve them.

Anonymous (October 26, 2006 @ 9:30pm):

What the hell is a "liberal" or a "conservative" anyway -- at least these days? I, for one, am anti-war, anti-religion, pro-free trade, and pro-legalization. Which box will you put me in?

While the incidents you cite are indeed troubling, they are hardly unique to "liberals." In fact, they are typical of the desperate, fringe groups and demagogues, those that can't otherwise get their message heard. Do you think mainstream anti-war activists (for example) like having anarchist losers and hippies of great inertia tag along to distract their audience and discredit their message? It's no different from what you see lately from John Dean, trying to reclaim Goldwater conservatism from screeching charlatans and pompous chickenhawks.

While your piece is well organized and well written, I think you should dig deeper with your analysis of the situation.

Anonymous (October 28, 2006 @ 10:37am):

The great irony is that the people who resort to the above "rebuttalrs" (they're really just insults) are the ones questioning free-speech rights (by their own definitions), because they are suggesting the author's criticism was inappropriate and, in some vague and stupid way, unconstitutional. Right? That is the upshot of what they're saying. I mean, if you immediately assert that someone has the right to say something as a way to rebut criticism, aren't you implying that such criticism violated their rights? -- which is, by definition, unconstitutional?

The Leftist paranoia enters into it when you consider the nature of the accusation. If you immediately assume that criticism from the political Right is tantamount to questioning someone's constitutional right to speak in the first place, what you are really saying is that if you scratch a conservative you'll find a Storm Trooper just under the surface. We knuckle draggers may say we're just offering criticism, but what we really mean is that anyone we disagree with has no right to say so. That so many on the Left seem to believe this, says a lot about the intellectual and psychological state of Lefties while saying nothing of interest about conservatives. I don't think it's always a matter of projection -- assuming your enemy sees things the same you do -- but I do think this knee-jerkery illuminates in a small way the bad faith of the Left. Not only does the "I have the right to speak" tantrum dodge the merits of specific criticisms, it starts from the assumption that as a matter of first principles left-wing protest should never be questioned.

Indeed, that's the reason the Left has rallied so fiercely behind the Columbia rioters. Wedded to a form of identity-politics logic which says some "authentic" voices cannot be questioned and inauthentic voices need not be listened to, these hardcore left-wing activists love the Columbia student thuggery because they think illegal immigrants are above reproach. They immediately resort to the argument "How dare you question a poor immigrants right to work!" The illegal immigrant plight is obviously a terrible one. But their poverty does not make Columbia advocates anymore qualified to rant about American immigration policy than it would be if they were wealthy Arabs. But their backers don't care, indeed they don't think anyone has the right to even point this out.