Column: Repairing free speech

Ridiculous.

That is the only word that comes to mind after the events of last week concerning David Horowitz's advertisement in The Chronicle.

The Chronicle's decision to run the ad made me proud to be associated with an organization with such strength in its journalistic convictions. The resultant words and actions of some on this campus made me ashamed to be an undergraduate at Duke University.

A week and half ago, The Chronicle ran an ad stating that slavery reparations were a "bad idea." After some negative feedback, Chronicle editor Greg Pessin wrote a column explaining the newspaper's decision and President Nannerl Keohane wrote a letter urging a campus discussion of the issue. A few days and demonstrations later, protesters made several demands to The Chronicle and to Keohane. These demands included the running of free ads apologizing for the original ad and also presenting the other side of the reparations issue. Some students discussed stealing every copy of The Chronicle, others decided to confront staff members personally, and still others spoke of physical destruction of property.

What amazes me is that the ad itself was never really discussed by those who objected to it. It was an advertisement, and as such its goal was to put forth strong statements in the hopes people would discuss the content and possibly buy Horowitz's book to explore the issue. The initiation of a discussion concerning this issue would be the response I expected from a supposedly enlightened, civilized campus population.

None of that happened, but I really wasn't surprised in the least.

Instead, some students were upset the ad even appeared in the paper. Thoughtful debate was replaced by the throwing of epithets, angry "protests" and threats of committing crimes against The Chronicle and its staff. Intelligent discussion? You know this campus well by now. This is Duke. When people even whisper race, we all know that within the impenetrable three-foot wall there is only one "right" viewpoint to express. The Thought Police immediately dub all other points of view racist, offensive, and are thus forbidden to be even mentioned.

This response is at best juvenile and at worst a dangerous threat to the maintenance of our democratic processes. Freedoms of speech and of the press are essential to a democracy such as ours that strives to build consensus by the clashing of opposing viewpoints. To challenge these rights is to imply that one person's ideas take precedence over another's. If this were to happen, if the media were restricted to broadcasting items that were first deemed "acceptable" by an outside group, the free marketplace of ideas would be irreparably compromised. Our country's tradition of freedom would be lost.

The sad thing is that everyone with at least part of a high school education knows this. How can Duke students, students at an allegedly elite university, possibly react in a way that runs counter to our core ideals of freedom? They can because we have created an atmosphere that makes it acceptable to advocate the silencing of opposing viewpoints when it comes to anything remotely having to do with race. It is this atmosphere that needs to be changed. If we are to be truly intellectually free, all forms of speech and thought control must be eliminated. Some speech may be uncomfortable, even a little hurtful, but as long as the speech falls within established legal limits it must not be subdued.

The knee-jerk labeling of voices that do not fall lock step into the predetermined "acceptable racial speech codes" must end. The thoughtful examination and exchange of ideas on racial issues must begin.

The other surprising element of this incident is the relative silence of community members who are outraged by the audacity of the protesters who think they should be able to control the press and who use childish and brutish methods to achieve their goals. Keohane's response did not pick a side. Keohane is a respected political science scholar. Why is she not defending the freedom of the press like any high school history teacher would do? Again, our suffocating intellectual atmosphere concerning racial issues works to hinder the expression of the most powerful member of the campus community.

The response to this ad makes me all the more eager to leave here in May. It makes me not want to be around people who, after years of this "fine" education, still believe that their ideas are so special that all others must be silenced. It is inspiring, though, to see some students defend their ideals and not back down under pressure from those with no regard for the freedoms our country that have protected for over 200 years. Let us not be confined by the chains of the campus Thought Police. The integrity of our free marketplace of ideas, a concept so crucial to the college campus, is at stake.

Dave Nigro is a Trinity senior.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Column: Repairing free speech” on social media.