In our symposium Thursday, Bill Deresiewicz discussed in great length about the importance of respecting others’ values and the unassailable right of free speech. He related this to the tendency of liberal arts educators, the media, and even friends and family to attempt to push a “right” way of thinking at the expense of other beliefs. He thinks that it should be in everyone’s best interest to accept the views of others as they are, even if these values may be different, offensive, or outright disparaging. I agree wholeheartedly that we have been given a unique opportunity by the structure of our government to be able to express ourselves without fear of retribution. However, I would counter that we also have a duty as human beings to be kind to one another and that we should express ourselves as we ourselves would like to be treated.
Concepts like “racism” or “sexism” or “anti-semitism” are difficult to define. Many people can pinpoint exact instances or experiences of such concepts and say “that’s racist,” but I think if you take anyone off the street and ask them to give a methodical, dictionary definition, it would be quite a challenge. There are so many different forms of the “-isms”--subtle and overt, indirect and direct, shrouded in humor or apparent in seriousness--so what do they all mean? And more importantly, how do we combat something so elusive? In a perfect world, we could just say “stop being racist” and that would be the end of that. However, these concepts are centuries in the making and cannot be unraveled by one confrontation. Jewish subordination dates back to biblical eras. Women as inferior human beings still remains a prevalent worldwide issue. Ethnic wars and mass genocide are still quite common. All due respect to Mr. Deresiewicz, but does he truly believe that by allowing people to continue to think and act in these ways will just magically solve the problem? Respecting others’ beliefs is one thing, but using your own values to inflict harm or pain is where the line needs to be drawn. He doesn’t believe there should be a line, but I say if there isn’t one, what is religion and “being a good person” or “striving for salvation” all for? If there isn’t one, what is the point of being moral at all?
Going to the Newseum yesterday, I understood that the purpose of the exhibits was to demonstrate the importance and sanctity of the freedom of speech and press. No one’s views should be inhibited on that front. Sometimes it is those very ideas that are socially constrained and tabooed that initiate change, fuel revolutions, and overthrow widely accepted norms. Yet I also remember the faces of all of the journalists who gave their lives in other regions of the world in the name of free speech. I remember the reasons why they died--in part because they represented the dangers of new ideas, global communication, progressive thought, equality, and so many other things that America stands for. They were working testaments to the beliefs of the U.S. And they died for that. And Mr. Deresiewicz wants the people who killed them to continue to spread their hate through human life in the name of freedom of expression?
Even if it isn’t through cold-blooded killing, just the presence of hate speech should not be tolerated in certain areas, if not all. He mentioned that he would condone Nazis marching through a Jewish community specifically populated by Jewish holocaust survivors because it is their right to do so through the 1st Amendment. But I would say that is intentionally inflicting pain on those most affected by those horrific times, and it should be prevented. They can say whatever they want on their own time, in their own space, but it is a clear violation of moral grounds for Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors. The allowance of this hatred validates them on the grounds that no one is attempting to stop them. They are energized by lack of concern. And that worries me about Mr. Deresiewicz argument. No one is that rational. Not one Holocaust survivor can just accept the fact that Nazis are free to roam about and shout hateful things in their own community. Not after what they’ve been through. Until we address that these kind of direct acts are wrong, they will continue happening. And yes, free speech is a right we all have. On that I do not disagree. But it is also a privilege and should be treated as such. And those who do not should not be accepted.
Lana Singer, IAC