Suppression of Minority Viewpoints?
Seen while wandering through Brandeis campus today:
“What do all these people have in common?
[pictures of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and other famous Republicans]
Their views are NOT WELCOME ON THIS CAMPUS.”
And also:
“Do you support the SUPPRESSION OF MINORITY VIEWPOINTS AT BRANDEIS?
If not, then come see David Horowitz…”
(text not exact – my memory’s not THAT good – but basic idea preserved)
Much as I’d like to disagree with the sentiment behind these posters, I’m not sure I can do so in good conscience. Unfortunately, I think the conservatives are right about this – Brandeis really does suppress their views.
This bothers me a lot, because I feel that one of the foundations of being a liberal is support for free expression in whatever form it takes (barring, of course, shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater and other such classic examples). And yet I see supposedly left/liberal groups on this campus actively suppressing others’ right to express their views. For a good example of this, take the Daniel Pipes incident last semester. Putting up posters attacking Pipes’ views was an acceptable way to protest. Tearing down pro-Pipes posters and holding a rally through dorm hallways on the night of his visit, ultimately ending in a major disturbance at his talk, was plain and simple suppression of Pipes’ right to free speech.
So by that token, conservatives on this campus are right to call oppression. But look who they chose to bring in to support their views: David Horowitz.
See, Horowitz hasn’t exactly got the best track record in terms of supporting others’ right to free speech. Horowitz’s usual tactic in “arguing against others’ views” is to call the other guy names. For a good example of this, let’s look at another incident that occurred at Brandeis in spring semester 2002 (I think): Noam Chomsky comes to speak here, and Horowitz supporters hand out Horowitz-penned flyers to everyone waiting in line. The title of the flyers: “Noam Chomsky – The Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate.” The front of them has a picture of Chomsky digitally edited to resemble Osama Bin Laden.
What’s the problem here? Horowitz’s pamphlet was specifically designed to taint people’s opinion of Chomsky before going in to hear what he actually had to say. This is just as much a form of censorship as the protest at the Pipes talk, and possibly a much more effective one, since it doesn’t make a martyr out of the speaker.
Look, I support everyone’s right to freely express their political views, no matter how much I disagree with them. But we can’t hide behind ad hominem attacks. Now maybe when David Horowitz comes to campus today, he will present an eloquent argument in favor of conservative public policy. But somehow I doubt it.
What I would really like to see is a speaker in favor of conservatism, not against liberalism, and especially not against liberals, because we all know that the philosophy and the philosopher are two VERY different things. And the same goes for all us liberals – we spend far too much time trashing the other guy or his ideas as opposed to promoting our own.
Wow, this has turned kind of long. Hopefully I’ve been coherent.
Comments are closed.
They’re all asshats, every last one of ‘em.
Yeah, sorry I can’t be more eloquent.
I definitely agree with you there. We need to focus on the freedom of speech aspect more, and less on the name-calling. That said, Chomsky is an asshole. I don’t think Horowitz’ name calling is professional, nor appropriate, but it’s not especially inaccurate, unfortunately.
I’d go as far as to say that was coherent… =)
And I agree…
Horowitz. Hurm. He didn’t have that good a reception when he was last at my alma mater… Dueling posters are a reasonable response to controversy. Even non-disruptive demonstrations–at several campuses, dozens of students enter the hall only to stand up and turn their backs or walk out as he takes the stage.
I’d like to see some organization have the balls to turn the traditional order of events around, requiring the speaker to respond to Q&A on their past views before giving his new ones. (Heck, I’d like to see that applied to Presidental speeches.) For example:
Nah. It’d never happen. Those who embrace the particular branch of philosophical oratory that Mr. Horowitz does hate to be held accountable to little things like facts.
Disclaimer: I flipped the bozo bit on Horowitz several years ago so I wouldn’t trust the man if he told me the sky was blue, but certainly everyone should be able to observe such a creature and his beliefs up close. (Sort of like the way regular hikers learn what poison ivy looks like.)
i do have to say that being a republican on the brandeis campus was a comfy and familiar feeling, that of beign jewish in the societ union. but i’ve been there, so it wasn’t bad…
Squeegee time again…
now that your LJ is back I am befriending you:-)
I tend to agree with the idea that both sides should always be heard before a conclusion is reached, and that is often impossible at Brandeis, much as it was impossible at my high school. No t knowing anything about this man, I have to say that whatever his beliefs, people who want to listen should go and listen and anyone who has a problem with that needs to re-examine his or her understanding of the concept of “freedom of speech.” I Satan himself decides to give a talk, i cannot see anything wrong with it. the fact that the republicans on this campus would chose this man to represent their desire to be heard when he himself cannot listen to others, may simply be due to a lack of foresight on their part.
That said, hurrah for a post with substance!
The Pipes incident also upset me. The stupidest thing was that by spreading the anti-Pipe fliers, which had all those racist statements, they only SPREAD the hate. That was just a dumb way to try fighting against him.