Free Speech As A Point-Of-View Sharpener
Princeton professor Robert P. George and Harvard prof Cornel West have posted a petition in defense of freedom of speech, notes the WSJ:
For years, Professors George and West, the former a conservative and the latter a socialist, together taught a class at Princeton on how to listen to contrary points of view. Middlebury's violence drove home what many in academia have come to see more clearly now--that the most basic tenets of free inquiry and exchange are under unprecedented pressure in the U.S., not least at universities.The George-West statement stands as a forceful rebuttal to the all-too-frequent attempt to stigmatize opponents into silence. We hope it gains the national support it deserves.
In the petition, George and West write something I have long believed -- that free speech, including the speech of people we disagree with, serves to enlighten and even improve each of us in a number of ways:
The pursuit of knowledge and the maintenance of a free and democratic society require the cultivation and practice of the virtues of intellectual humility, openness of mind, and, above all, love of truth. These virtues will manifest themselves and be strengthened by one's willingness to listen attentively and respectfully to intelligent people who challenge one's beliefs and who represent causes one disagrees with and points of view one does not share.That's why all of us should seek respectfully to engage with people who challenge our views. And we should oppose efforts to silence those with whom we disagree--especially on college and university campuses. As John Stuart Mill taught, a recognition of the possibility that we may be in error is a good reason to listen to and honestly consider--and not merely to tolerate grudgingly--points of view that we do not share, and even perspectives that we find shocking or scandalous. What's more, as Mill noted, even if one happens to be right about this or that disputed matter, seriously and respectfully engaging people who disagree will deepen one's understanding of the truth and sharpen one's ability to defend it.
None of us is infallible. Whether you are a person of the left, the right, or the center, there are reasonable people of goodwill who do not share your fundamental convictions. This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that all speakers are equally worth listening to. It certainly does not mean that there is no truth to be discovered. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily wrong. But they are not necessarily wrong either. So someone who has not fallen into the idolatry of worshiping his or her own opinions and loving them above truth itself will want to listen to people who see things differently in order to learn what considerations--evidence, reasons, arguments--led them to a place different from where one happens, at least for now, to find oneself.
They wind up with a note referencing the ugly speaker-siliencing that's going on on campuses these days -- most recently at Middlebury:
It is all-too-common these days for people to try to immunize from criticism opinions that happen to be dominant in their particular communities. Sometimes this is done by questioning the motives and thus stigmatizing those who dissent from prevailing opinions; or by disrupting their presentations; or by demanding that they be excluded from campus or, if they have already been invited, disinvited. Sometimes students and faculty members turn their backs on speakers whose opinions they don't like or simply walk out and refuse to listen to those whose convictions offend their values. Of course, the right to peacefully protest, including on campuses, is sacrosanct. But before exercising that right, each of us should ask: Might it not be better to listen respectfully and try to learn from a speaker with whom I disagree? Might it better serve the cause of truth-seeking to engage the speaker in frank civil discussion?Our willingness to listen to and respectfully engage those with whom we disagree (especially about matters of profound importance) contributes vitally to the maintenance of a milieu in which people feel free to speak their minds, consider unpopular positions, and explore lines of argument that may undercut established ways of thinking. Such an ethos protects us against dogmatism and groupthink, both of which are toxic to the health of academic communities and to the functioning of democracies.
This site is a free speech site because I believe in free speech. But the free speech here has also been personally good for me -- because, over the years, the challenges to my thinking by commenters here have made me a sharper and more carefully logical thinker. I also learn a lot and have changed my mind on a number of issues, after being driven to look into others' points of view (and sometimes getting mocked into doing that -- but that's okay).
After a lifetime of valuing free speech -- and seeing speaking freely but also listening to others modeled by my mother -- the idea that hurt feelz should be prioritized over free speech...well, it's a bit like suggesting we stop breathing because there might be a little pollen in the air.
via @adamkissel
But Amy if they actually had to read and think about stuff it would rob them of their "agency" and take away their time to grovel about their "white privilege".
There are only so many hours in the day.
Bob in Texas at March 15, 2017 5:23 AM
Bob gets to the nut of it.
Listening to, and comprehending what is being said is an awful lot like work. Doing that with someone you find objectionable? whoa, nellie!
Inconceivable!
I R A Darth Aggie at March 15, 2017 6:17 AM
The Left wants to engage in speech suppression now because the Left knows, in its heart of hearts, that it is intellectually bankrupt. The only answer the Left seems to have for anything is "double down on what's not working, and magic will happen somehow". We're essentially on our third generation of the Western academy being dominated (and trashed) by leftists. Conservative and libertarian students come out of school having had their opinions challenged at every turn. They get really good at defending and expanding their philosophies because they've had lots of practice. Lefty students slide by with the "parrot back what the prof says, get an A" strategy. The university shields them from being exposed to contrary opinions. They graduate and find that the real world doesn't conform to a lot of their pre-conceived notions, and they don't know how to effectively argue or even think about their positions, because they never had to.
Cousin Dave at March 15, 2017 6:38 AM
Not only do we have grade inflation on campus, we have outrage inflation.
Whereas formerly only topics like favoring genocide or extreme overt racism were consider too evil to allow to be heard, now the slightest deviation from absolute PC criteria (like offensive holloween costumes) are considered beyond the pale, evil, catastrophic.
And yet, there are places in the world where genocide has happened recently, where gays are thrown from roofs, where wars are going on and the issues underlying these things need to be discussed. Also, people lie and just because they say something (like 1 in 5 women are raped) does not make it so (oh, I know, I'm evil for even suggesting that a SJW might lie).
cc at March 15, 2017 9:08 AM
Another reason to be tolerant of people is that individuals themselves change their views over time. Many people become more conservative with age. If age brings experience and experience brings wisdom, then this is something to take seriously. Women change their voting to more conservative after they marry. Home ownership and having children change how people vote and what they favor. People can differ in their views not only due to how they view the facts, but due to what they value. A 20 yr old stoner may not care much about bond issues for schools, for example. Men are much less frightened by crime than women are. All of these things are valid differences in viewpoint.
cc at March 15, 2017 9:13 AM
I'll fight this battle until the day I die, but I think the war is lost.
With every tiny skirmish, the pinheads on campus and elsewhere are ever-more convinced that their vanity and their imaginations have equipped them with decency in a way that their actual encounters with other human beings have not.
(And yes, I think Trump's election is one response to these forces.)
I have a three-step ladder for judging people. In ascending importance— Are they smart? Are they courageous? And most importantly, are they kind?
It's fun to have a list like that, but one problem with it is that being smart —which is merely about being as alert as you can, rather than being good with numbers or logic— is often indistinguishable from courage... Which is about exactly what you think it's about. You need to trust that you can do what you need to do when you're on unfamiliar ground.
And so these little shitweasels come to campus from lives of comfort and security, just as their parents have lived, without ever having to build things, or start and maintain businesses, or worry about hunger or crime or failed crops or even getting sick. (It's a great time to be alive.)
So they haven't done anything and they haven't met anyone who isn't pretty much like they are, because our schools and workplaces and neighborhoods are brutally stratified.
How would they even know that they're cowards? Who in their life ever told them? Who ever asked them to do something they didn't want to do, or make friends with anyone they weren't going to be friends with anyway?
They've never been asked to consider anything but their feelings... So they think all the beauty in the world is in their torpid, flabby little hearts.
An alternative explanation is that I'm getting old and cranky. But for fuck's sake, Donald Trump is president, and the ground doesn't seem as solid as it did a few decades ago.
We're gonna miss the free expression of ideas.
Crid (No More Dronekills) at March 16, 2017 12:53 AM
When trying to understand how these cowering little urchins came to think so highly of themselves, this explains a lot.
Crid (No More Dronekills) at March 16, 2017 6:14 AM
"...and the ground doesn't seem as solid as it did a few decades ago."
So I'm kind of in your boat (old and cranky) too. The more I think about it, the more I think that the ground never really was all that solid. America, Western civilization, the post-WWII era -- they are all very much exceptions to the general course of human history. In general, the destructive forces outnumber the constructive ones. Vandalism is a lot easier than building, and to a certain mind set, a lot more satisfying. Except of course that, while the builders never run out of things to build, the vandals eventually run out of things to vandalize. That's when the space that they occupy collapses.
America exists because, at the time, the constructive people were able to get far enough away that the destructors were not able to reach them. But geography does not protect this continent any more. The world is too small. It's starting to look like that in the fairly near future (say 50-100 years from now), there will only be two courses of action remaining: fight an all-out war against whatever segment of the destructors is causing the most trouble at the moment, or do what the first European-Americans did, and move far away.
The trouble with the first course of action is that, in the long run, it's never more than a holding action, even if the good guys fight with a level of ruthlessness that our present society would find immoral. The trouble with the second is that, in today's world, the only way to get far enough away is to go off-planet. And right now, the necessary technology is not quite up to it. The destructors will have to be fought off long enough for that technology to be developed. Which event will occur first?
Cousin Dave at March 16, 2017 9:49 AM
"But for fuck's sake, Donald Trump is president"
That's the fault of the Democrats. Shouldn't have stuck with Hillary. Too late now.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 16, 2017 10:32 AM
Leave a comment