www.slate.com: In 2001, the Brown Daily Herald accepted an advertisement questioning the idea that black people in the United States are owed reparations. Students called the ad racist, and responded by trashing 4,000 copies of the newspaper. Brown was accused of fostering an intolerant environment, where protest of controversial ideas turns into the squelching of some views altogether.
4 comments:
"I strongly believe that Brown must be a place that supports the free exchange of ideas, even if it means making space for points of view that are controversial or deeply upsetting,"
This quote from Christine Paxton, Brown's President, could be extended to represent the entire USA. We opted for free speech. There's a reason it's part of the first amendment, and that's because our liberators and founders saw it as truly essential. We have to be able to express our opinions in public forum in order for anything to be accomplished and to know that we are on the right track towards agreement. We have to hear people out before we can expect them to return the favor.
That being said, free speech is a two-way street. It means you have to be prepared to hear some things you don't like, and really, you should give them voice. For example, I stayed with some students from a large southern university one summer in Spain, and it became clear that their views on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage were quite the opposite of mine. But we talked about it, and while I completely disagreed with them (in fact I would call their opinions discriminatory), stopping them from saying their piece would be wrong. The beauty of this country is that we can both have our opinions and voice them. Disagreement is part of the price we pay for freedom, but really it's worth it if it means we can think what we want, say it out loud, and start a discussion. That's the road towards progress.
I am so happy to know that Brown's president is so intelligently and thoughtfully speaking out on this issue. While I see Robert M. O'Neil's point of view on the fact that punishment for the students who shut down Kelly's lecture could be counter-productive, I still think that it needs to happen. I agree with the Facebook commenter who said that if these students are not punished, then the university is sending a message that their code of conduct does not have to be taken seriously. That being said, O'Neil's idea about bringing Kelly back to campus should be considered. The challenges of that action. though, would include convincing Kelly to come back in the first place, and finding a way to ensure that what happened the first time doesn't happen again. A dialogue needs to occur, so there needs to be some way to prevent students from doing what they did last time. I don't think this would be easy, and I have no clue how anyone would go about doing that, but at the same time succeeding in doing it would send a powerful message. Those students need to learn to be responsible and mature enough to express their views while also allowing those with differing views to be heard. It is because of students like those who shut down the debate that many other students on campus feel like they can't speak out, which is the opposite of how college campuses should work. It is the students that are doing the censoring here, not the university's leaders, and it's going to take serious action on the part of the university to stop this trend of shutting down the exchange of ideas.
I agree with Shannon: these college kids absolutely have a right to their opinion about Ray Kelly, and they have a right to express it, but the problem comes in when their expression of protest stops the conversation from even happening. Something like this happened at my college when we had a politician come to speak, and the students who were interrupting the speaker were removed from the auditorium, not because what they were saying was inappropriate, but because their way of saying it was preventing anything else from happening. There's a huge difference between asking hard questions of people you disagree with and completely shutting them out of a conversation. Asking tough questions and disagreeing with someone is something that should absolutely be encouraged at events like this, but there's also a good and a bad way to go about it.
There is a very fine, very blurred line when it comes to freedom of speech. I do believe that Brown's authorities are handling this particular incident very well, but it is also important consider the public ramifications of allowing lectures by people with much more intolerant or radical idea. When filtering lecturers I believe brown should take into consideration the public opinion or social norms of the time especially to avoid situations such as this. It isn't hampering the free exchange of ideas, but instead promoting a health environment for such exchange. On the students actions; if they were in any way insulted by how Kelly spoke they should have left and voiced their opinions at a better time. Even if he was controversial he did have the right to speak and the university brought him in. It was their choice from the beginning to bring up a potentially dangerous situation, the student shouldn't be sanctioned for disagreeing with this decision.
Post a Comment