Speak your mind

It is not often that I find myself in agreement with anything the hyper-conservative media criticism outlet, Accuracy in Media, has to say about constitutional interpretation. In quite a few past columns, I have attacked this organization for its often racist, homophobic and Christian-centric themes. One of my columns even resulted in a heated phone call from respected pundit Andy Selepak. Imagine my surprise when I found myself nodding my head in emphatic agreement while I read a Sept. 25 guest column by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, in which she spouts off in frustration about inconsistent treatment of political free speech, specifically in academia.\nChesler said there is a trend on American college campuses of extreme political correctness and a tendency to shy away from ideas that might offend traditionally marginalized populations. This trend can be observed in everything from which speakers are invited to speak, to the treatment of professors like University of Colorado’s former instructor Phil Mitchell, who claims he was fired for his socially conservative beliefs. What we have now is an environment incredibly open to traditionally liberal ideas, but one incredibly hostile to conservative thought. How Chesler personally reconciles her argument for a free marketplace of ideas and her admonishment of Columbia for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, I’m not sure, but her warning to higher education to not shy away from offensive speakers is no less valid.\nThe groups that fought so hard for the ability to distribute information and voice non-mainstream ideas in the Vietnam era are now the same ones who are silencing conservative opinions on the basis that they might be offensive, the hypocrisy of which is appalling. For the Bill of Rights to hold water, it necessarily must be universal. The freedom to voice one’s opinions has very little to do with whether it’s going to make someone angry. Even the Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of a right to not be offended, because being offended is the choice of the listener and thus does not provide a compelling government interest for the speech to be censored. Unfortunately, the structure of academia provides a legal loophole that can be used to stifle the marketplace of ideas. Because universities can choose who they invite to speak and there are no laws against intellectual discrimination in that regard, universities have every right to deny possibly offensive conservative voices by not inviting them. All we can do is remind them of their responsibility to further the evolution of society and knowledge by promoting a free-flowing marketplace.\nIt is vitally important that educational institutions resist the urge to invite only non-offensive speakers and educators to their campuses. By gagging alternative voices of any kind, they are stunting the marketplace of ideas and failing in their responsibility to bring a world of ideas to their students. Invite the offensive speakers to campus, encourage debate and dialogue and let truth and fallacy battle it out in the arena of public scrutiny because shutting anyone up does a disservice to us all.