But the protection can’t be selective.
by Tom Evslin
The now infamous responses of the three college presidents to whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their institutions’ rules on bullying and harassment were horrifyingly hypocritical. Harvard, from which I’m embarrassed to have graduated, ranks dead last for climate of freedom of speech according to The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Penn is next to last. All three presidents have tolerated the humiliation of professors and the cancellation and disruption of speakers who don’t hew to politically correct orthodoxy. At their universities it is verboten to point out that the chromosomes for gender are binary even if people’s chosen expression of gender is not. Faculty can’t be hired who think it’s racist to talk about “white guilt”.
The answer to the problem of intolerance on campus is not to add antisemitism to the list of forbidden opinions. I’m Jewish but I’d just as soon know who my enemies are. More important I need to hear the arguments of those who disagree with me. I’m happy to argue for my (not unconditional) support of Israel rather than Hamas. Of course violence should be not only banned but punished. The right to protest does not include the right to shout down a speaker or to block the functioning of an institution. Speech leading directly to violent action is not protected (Trump on January 6th?). But not even hateful or “unscientific” speech should be banned, not by the government and not by a university.
I used to be a proud supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union at the time when they even supported the right of Nazis to march (peacefully). I stopped supporting the ACLU when they decided that some speech was more worthy of protection than other speech. We must go back to the principal attributed to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The shameful spectacle of the hypocritical college presidents will have been worthwhile if university boards now insist that the institutions protect all opinions and the people who hold them while expelling those who are violent or obstruct the free speech of others. If the unfired presidents now actually enforce and encourage free speech, if they practice what they preach, they won’t have to apologize the next time they don’t shut down a bunch of kids saying stupid or obnoxious things.
The author, an author, entrepreneur, former Vermont state cabinet officer, lives in Stowe. He founded NG Advantage, a natural gas truck delivery company. This commentary is republished with permission from his blog, Fractals of Change.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
“Harvard, from which I’m embarrassed to have graduated, ranks dead last for climate of freedom of speech” Yet, you managed to mention that you went there in the second sentence of your diatribe just like every person that has attended that institution.
If you refrained from utilizing the Fedsurrection fairytale, your point would be better suited for general consumption. The facts and evidence of January 6th is available for all the world to see if one can handle the Truth of the matter. However, it is good to see the bundling and bumbling fiction over facts as evidence that cognitive dissonence or Stockholm Syndrome remains and is keeping the beast system churning along, if just barely. By the way, Warren Buffet is dumping $28.7 billion in stock – gee, I wonder why?
Ms. Casey, I add my ditto. But once a “never Trumper” always a “never Trumper” no matter the facts in evidence. People just hate to admit they might be wrong. Sad really.
Well said Mr. Evslin, well said.
This kind of talk will not be tolerated in the Green Mountains. Just say no! No free speech, yes to cancel culture!
And what ever we do NO FREE PRESS!!!!
The old saying applies here (and I’m paraphrasing I know): “I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”.
With the deplatforming, the throttling, the censoring, and the refusal by the MSM to cover important stories these days (or if they do, flat out lying about it to “create the narrative”), not to mention the constant push toward divisiveness, the saying above is more appropriate now than ever. Whatever happened to civil debate, where I make my case, you make yours, we let the population sort it out and let history decide if the chosen course was correct or a incorrect?
And yet, Mr Evslin seems totally uninterested in researching the real facts of J6, preferring instead to spew the tired trope “Orange Man Bad”. But again, although I disagree with Mr Evslin’s opinion, I totally honor his right to communicate it. It’s how we evolve and make progress as a society. Yin-yang. Positive-negative.
Look, students all across this country, like it or not, have a right to have their opinions heard too. We have to be very careful about only allowing the preferred narrative to be voiced. So I say, let the Jews condemn Hamas. Let them condemn Palestinians. It’s their right. But also let the Palestinians state their case. I get that too. How would we like it, as Vermonters, if the UN or NWO came in and tossed us all out, saying they were taking the state to, for example “Re-settle Ukranians”? And btw, we were all going to have to be relocated to New York? Wouldn’t you want your homeland back? I would. So I get what the Palestinians are saying too. And as long as neither side breaks a Constitutional law, they all have a right to speak. What in the world is so difficult to understand about that concept??? And no, our Constitutional Rights do not end the minute we set foot on a college campus.
At the risk of “touching the third rail” here, something’s been bothering me for awhile now. We’re constantly being bombarded with “antisemitism bad”, and it is. Rightfully so. As is anti- any ethnic or religious group in this country you can think of. Blacks, Asians, Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and on and on.
So I ask, why then is it now fine to be “anti-American”? And why is that attitude not only tolerated, but fostered? I’m bombarded daily with “The ideals the United States was founded on don’t matter any more.” Or, “White (American) supremacy causes all the world’s problems”. Or, “White males are all misogynistic”.
What does it say when the (mostly) libs (not all people) from the coasts and cities are being openly “anti-American”, but it’s tolerated in a way that being “anit-Semitic” would never be?
Why isn’t being anti-American decried as loudly and forcefully as being anti-Semitic is? Think about it.
Peaceful Nazis? My grandfather taught me that Nazis don’t want Peace. They want pieces… a piece of Poland; a piece of France; a piece of England, and some Russia perchance. They don’t want Peace. They want Pieces!!!! WAKE UP!!!