Cheapening Free Speech
- 10.19.2007 - 10:04 AMWhen Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak last month, the most common refrain uttered by the University’s defenders was that, by doing so, the University was honoring the time-tested and proudly American principle of “free speech.” This country was founded upon a resistance to monarchical authority; a corollary to that impulse is the individual’s freedom to say or publish what he thinks. No one can quibble with this understanding of a bedrock American freedom. But where Columbia’s defenders went wrong was in their contention that protesting Ahmadinejad’s presence would contradict thi fundamentally American notion.
This has always been a silly and unsophisticated understanding of what the Bill of Rights actually says, or what the “spirit” of free speech actually means. No one has denied Ahmadinejad a platform for his odious views; indeed, just the day after his rant at Columbia he was given an international soapbox at the United Nations General Assembly. And the fact that his views on matters ranging from the existence of the Holocaust to the future existence of Israel are so well known further lays waste to the claim that not inviting Ahmadinejad would strike a blow to “free speech.”
What ultimately mattered was that a distinguished University lent credence to his views. Columbia’s physics department would never host a speech by a member of the Flat Earth Society, nor should it. People who think the moon landing was a hoax or that the Holocaust never happened have every right to utter and publish these beliefs; they have no “right” to a speaking engagement at an Ivy League School.
This crucial distinction is one that has long been lost on those people who organize events on college campuses. The latest example occurs across the pond at Oxford University, where the Oxford Union—the school’s prestigious debating society that counts leading politicians, journalists, and business leaders as alumnae—has invited a rogue’s gallery to take part in a “Free Speech Forum” set for the end of November. The Union has already been excoriated by critics, as noted on contentions, for staging a debate on the Middle East conflict and loading it with anti-Israel activists.
Among those invited to the “Free Speech Forum” are David Irving (the notorious Holocaust denier), Nick Griffin (the leader of the anti-Semitic, racist, and fascist British National Party), and Alexander Lukoshenko, the dictator of Belarus. The Union’s president told the Guardian that, “The Oxford Union is famous for is commitment to free speech and although I do think these people have awful and abhorrent views I do think Oxford students are intelligent enough to challenge and ridicule them.” Indeed, one Oxford Union committee member even used Columbia’s example as a justification for the invite: “If Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad, then why shouldn’t we invite Irving?” Thankfully, Lukoshenko is under a European Union travel ban and will not be able to attend. Unfortunately, both the fascist and the Holocaust denier have indicated their eager anticipation.
The primary outcome of this invitation is the Oxford Union’s discrediting of itself. As with Ahmadinejad at Columbia, there is nothing to be “learned” from engaging in dialogue with fascists and Holocaust-deniers. Oxford students are indeed an “intelligent” bunch: all the more reason that they do not need to spend an evening listening to these men, thus granting them legitimacy. One presumes that the motivating impulse behind Oxford’s “Free Speech Forum” is to present some of the most outlandish views possible. But the purpose of freedom of speech is to elevate discussion and broaden our common understanding, not to promote lies and hate (Griffin’s and Irving’s specialty).
To honor “free speech,” ought not the Oxford Union instead extend invitations to individuals living in countries where the principle is non-existent? Why not invite democracy activists in China or exiled Zimbabwean journalists, of which there is no shortage in the United Kingdom?
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
October 19th, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Columbia would not invite an adherent of nooses for black people, but it invited an adherent of genocide for Jews. Every time I’m in that neighborhood it smells bad.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Thanks for this commentary. It’s surprising - and depressing - how few people actually think about the meaning of “free speech” as they repeat the phrase endlessly to justify stupidity.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I do not subscribe to the notion that Columbia University’s invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was simply “a silly and unsophisticated understanding of what the… ’spirit’ of free speech actually means.” No, it’s far more sinister than simple lack of sophistication.
No one has ever denied Mr. Ahmadinejad the right to free speech. In fact, as President of Iran, one might say that his right of free speech are greater than nearly anyone living in the middle east, perhaps the world.
And one can not attribute Columbia’s motives as simple silliness or unsophisticated understanding. This is, after all, on of the top Ivy League universities in one of the most educated nations in the world. Unsophisticated. Hardly. Adjectives such as sinister, dishonest, provocative, or supportive of terrorist regimes are far more appropriate to describe Columbia’s actions.
In colloquial terms, one only needs to view Columbia’s administration and faculty for what it really is… a collection of 1960’s radicals who have grown older, assumed prestigious positions, but who have never “grown up”. They were in that disgraceful invitation, as the expression goes, “sticking it to the man”. What they fail to understand is they are the “man” and in maintaining this strident opposition to order, are simply enabling madmen, terrorists and murderers. But radicals rarely think in such rational terms.
Oxford, on the other hand, can not be merely excused by attributing such immature motives to their administration. The rage of anti-Semitism in Britain, has sadly been a part of the dark underbelly of British so-called “society” for generations. Many writers have proposed that if Britain were on the European continent in the 1930’s, they would be the first among European nations to deport their Jews to Nazi concentration camps. And, while the acts of Oxford may be despicable by U.S. standards, they are truly understandable in the context of a British Society that has long hated it’s own Jewish population, far more so today than nations facing their own anti-Semitic issues such as France or Germany.
While Mr. Kirchick suggests that Oxford extend its invitations elsewhere, that would not serve the purposes of the university’s academics. The goal of this so-called “Free Speech Forum” is to extend a long established British tradition, not to support any form of free speech. It’s time to describe it in precisely those terms.
Jack Heismann
Washington, D.C.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:27 AM
this is typical of the liberal elite….’free speech’ is largely that of the tittilating ‘alternate ideologies” -opressors, thugs, the backward minded, whose views have never made it to the mainstream simply because the views lack common sense. You see, it does not take common sense to get oneself ensconced in the ivory towers of the intellectual elite, it only takes the ability to regurgitate information to the pleasure of other ‘elites’
October 20th, 2007 at 1:25 PM
In reading about Columbia, and now Oxford’s, reasons for inviting these people I get the feeling that they aren’t as sophisticated as people perceive them to be. They state that they invite these people because they want to engage them in dialog, however that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Dialog with these types has been tried and tried, it has never worked. One would hope that they are intelligent enough to realize that you aren’t going to reason a man who denies the holocaust out of that position, reason didn’t lead him to it so how can it lead him out?
So dialog doesn’t appear to be an honest reason, rather it seems to be the excuse they convince themselves of (lets be honest, their are certain types that are notorious for self deception, a mental image of Chamberlain waving a piece of paper comes to mind ). So what could the reason be?
The way that Columbia treated Ahmadinejad, rudely, for me is a better tell in why they invited him, ridicule. Oxford appears to have unwittingly given a degree of confirmation to this when the inviter said “I do think Oxford students are intelligent enough to challenge and ridicule them.” It appears that these schools are trying to stage a show so their “sophisticated” and “intelligent” students can simply throw fruit and perhaps an occasional vegetable at these men.
Lord knows that they are far to sophisticated to actually throw fruit, but in their self deceived minds I am sure that is what they see.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Richard: If the leader of an important country advocated lynch law the worst thing would be to keep him and his ideas shrouded in hearsay.
James Kirchick: Columbia’s invitation did not raise a wave of enthusiasm for Ahmadinejad, or plunge his opponents in Tehran into despair, It did not embarrass the United States. It did not advance Ahmadinejad’s cause. It allowed him to put his foot into his mouth once again and to show Americans close-up, the caliber of Iran’s leadership. Face it, September 24 turned out well.
As to the Oxford Union, there is a difference between its upcoming, rigged “One State Solution” debate, where both sides are largely hostile to Israel, and its Free Speech Forum where overt Jew haters are allowed to do their worst. The former is like a book whose cover and title mislead the reader about its contents. Such a text does not belong in a book store or a library. The latter however, is like a book whose title describes its contents accurately. The reader knows what he is getting. If we favor free speech we must grant its legitimacy on the shelves.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:08 AM
The following is a recent quote from Ahmadinejad as to why he wanted to visit Ground Zero:
“I also wanted to raise several questions and express my views. I wanted to say that in my opinion, this incident is the result of the mismanagement of the world, and the result of the inhuman management of the world. Why did such an incident take place? We need to get to the root causes. We don’t want them to turn this incident, in 20 years’ time, into another false idol like the Holocaust, which they would use as a pretext to kill peoples, and prevent anybody from opening this [Pandora’s] box and examining what really happened in this incident. They might turn 9/11 into something sacred, and whoever does not accept it would be considered an infidel, whereas whoever accepts it would have to accept all the ensuing crimes.”
I once read that during the draft riots the rioters wanted to burn Columbia to the ground. An ugly part of me wishes they had. A few weeks back I wrote a length reply about how freedom of speech requires moral choices, and how Columbia had gratuitously chosen to honor a man who stood against the most basic principles of decency, thereby betraying the very freedoms to which they were paying lip service. Nothing since has changed my mind.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:01 AM
Phillip
When Ahmadinajad commenced his odious harangue [other than in regard to his ridiculous comments about there being no Homosexuals in Iran], there was, from how I heard the TV coverage of his talk at Columbia, in fact, scant active “ridiculing” emanating from the ranks of the Columbia student body;to the contrary, a steady and significant degree of agreement and applause, was to be heard, especially when he presented himself as a poorly received “houseguest” by the University, this being so, even in response to some of his more outrageous statements and averments.
“Sophisticated” students actually rising to properly challenge those statements by the little Iranian dictator [lacking only the tooth-brush moustache] once he had been handed the podium, in the furtherance of “freedom of speech and open debate”, don’t you know, by their own grey-bearded, nattily attired tweedy sport-coated wise “professors”, themselves the purveyors of a hostile and self-hating view of Amerika
Sophisticated fruit throwers, the graduating class of 2007-you must be joking!
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Let it be noted that the Oxford Union’s scheduled “One State Solution” debate has been canceled.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:18 AM
Belarus lecture for the Oxford Union
Tuesday October 16, 2007
The Guardian
I would like to add up a few more details to your article (BNP leader and Holocaust denier invited to Oxford Union; Dictator among those asked to address students, October 12). A while ago, this embassy received a letter from the president of the Oxford Union inviting President Lukashenko to give a lecture. The letter from Luke Tryl stresses that the Belarus president “would have much of interest to say”, and is among “a range of speakers who more accurately represent the 21st century world”.
We took the idea seriously in the belief that the students of this highly esteemed university would be indeed keen to get a sense of how Belarus lives, and why Belarussians are unanimous in their support of the president and his policies. It is the commitment of many Oxford graduates to fighting through stereotypes that has made them prominent scientists and public servants.
But we had our doubts, too. Regrettably, the outcome proves them right, even in an old democracy, freedom of speech is not everyone’s entitlement. Mr Tryl is hardly in the picture about Belarus and does not go to great lengths to understand what Alexander Lukashenko stands for - though, he is surprisingly plain and clear about several things, eg what the resident’s views are and whether the speaker will be challenged and ridiculed. Sadly, Mr Tryl ridiculed himself here. Just compare his letter of invitation with your quotes. May our commiserations be a consolation prize for the president of the Oxford Union. Belarussians are open and amiable people. We are always ready for dialogue with those who come to us with an open heart and good intentions.
Alexander Sidoruk
Counsellor, Belarus embassy