Washington College students rudely disrupt a talk by a conservative scholar.
Stanford University Law School students rudely interrupt a conservative federal judge.
University of Pennsylvania students, disappointed by the school’s fossil fuels investments, rudely interrupt a Homecoming football game by storming the field at halftime and delaying the game for an hour. They hoped to gain attention (as they did) and alumni affirmation (which they didn’t).
Is free speech, as selectively applied by students displeased with a speaker’s political allegiance, fair speech? I think not.
Encouraged to be critical thinkers, students instead are favoring mob rule. Their treatment of people who think differently than they is abysmal. Their listening skills are defective. They believe that disagreement nullifies polite behavior. Their immaturity is astounding.
We are experiencing an epidemic of student activism similar to the protests that characterized the 1960s. Then, the Vietnam War and Civil Rights demonstrations ignited actions by young adults to occupy university administration offices and join marches in Washington and New York. The spark continued to inflame the first half of the 1970s.
Families steeped in the Great Depression and World War II became splintered. Privileged youth felt empowered to disclaim a war corruptly executed; unfortunately, they unfairly disparaged soldiers who had nothing to do with conceiving the Southeast Asian conflict. They justifiably condemned racism; they bravely suffered physical harm.
Nearly 65 years later, college campuses again are becoming battlegrounds for academic dissatisfaction. Those whose political philosophy is decidedly right-wing face uncalled-for disparagement from their liberal peers. Behavior has morphed into self-righteous indignation—and abject failure to listen.
Rudeness is the norm. It is unconscionable, destructive of civil discourse. Young undergrads don’t care. What matters is abject opposition. Free speech is weaponized.
Should undergrads accuse me of exercising judgment based on my advanced age, I would oppose that interpretation. Free speech is a Constitutional right, preferably devoid of heckling. It bears an unspoken responsibility to listen and treat the speaker with respect.
Or students can find something else to do with their time. That’s their right.
I must digress ever so slightly by referring again to Penn, my alma mater. The subject is fraught. The Palestine Literature Festival convened this past weekend, much to the angry despair of Jewish students and angrier dismay of alumni. Several speakers were known anti-Semites, including Roger Waters, a British singer who claims he is not an anti-Jewish, but someone who is critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
In a world dominated by nuance, American Jews too criticize the Netanyahu government for its oppression of Palestinians living on the West Bank. However, they do not voice anti-Semitic comments, only disappointment at the diminution of democracy in Israel.
Highly attuned to anti-Semitic comments and actions, Jews consider criticism of Zionism and Israeli policies toward Palestinians as code for anti-semitism. They may be right.
I am saddened by the university’s lack of judgment and its unwillingness to change course. And while I support the festival’s literary intent and free speech—if not a devious tactic to voice bigotry—I have spent painful time trying to divine the intrinsic value of free versus hateful discourse. If the latter leads to dangerous conditions imposed on Jewish students, then my tolerance weakens.
Anti-Semitic remarks sting me, as if fired by a stun gun. Still, a rude reaction is not my style. Agitated behavior accomplishes little but continuation of toxic dialogue.
University students, wherever they roam academic villages, achieve little but immature self-satisfaction when they exercise their free speech to thwart the expression of viewpoints antithetical to theirs.
Rudeness is avoidable. It also is inexcusable. Guest speakers who are not espousing viewpoints that can incite harm deserve tolerant hospitality.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. After 44 years in Easton, Howard and his wife, Liz, moved in November 2020 to Annapolis, where they live with Toby, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who has no regal bearing, just a mellow, enticing disposition.
Reed Fawell 3 says
This is an excellent article. Thank you for it. Obviously, one of the key questions here is why is this happening at our colleges and universities? The answer is a highly complex brew of forces that have been going on unfortunately for a very long time, forces that now, I believe, are turbo charged by our high tech world of instant communication that can mobilize memes into group think and action in hours and days, instead to years and decades.
One of the best and most intelligent websites that discuss these issues and possible solutions with unusual insight and authority, in my view, is The James C. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
Go to their website https://www.jamesgmartin.center/ and click ABOUT and here is what you will find:
The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal is a nonprofit institute dedicated to improving higher education in North Carolina and the nation. Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, it has been an independent 501(c)(3) organization since 2003. It was known as the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy until January 2017.
What We Are Trying to Achieve
Our goals are to improve colleges and universities, especially in North Carolina.
We want to:
1/ Increase the diversity of ideas taught, debated, and discussed on campus;
2/ Encourage respect for the institutions that underlie economic prosperity and freedom of action and conscience;
3/ Increase the quality of teaching and students’ commitment to learning so that they graduate with strong literacy and fundamental knowledge;
4/ Encourage cost-effective administration and governance.
To do this we will:
Inform parents, students, trustees, alumni, and administrators about actual learning on campus and how it can be improved;
Inform taxpayers about the use and impact of their funds;
Find ways to acquaint students with ideas that are dismissed or marginalized on campuses today;
Be a watchdog for legislative and administrative governance.
What We Do
The university system in the United States has accomplished a great deal of good, but we believe that higher education in the United States, including North Carolina, has strayed from its chief goals of scholarly inquiry and responsible teaching.
All too often, universities allow teaching to become shallow and trendy, failing to challenge students intellectually and disparaging traditional principles of justice, ethics, and liberal education. Students know little about the history of their country or the institutions that led to this nation’s prosperity and liberty. Students can get by without taking rigorous courses, and non-academic activities overshadow scholarship. As a result, many college graduates have poor skills in computation, communication, and logical analysis. Faculty are allowed excessive latitude in what they teach and often get away with little teaching at all, because research is emphasized. Taxpayers as well as students and their families pay hefty prices to support a system that often appears to provide little educational value.
To address these and other problems, the Martin Center conducts studies in areas such as governance, curriculum, financing, access, accountability, faculty research, and administrative policies. We explore ways to increase the accountability of trustees, administrators, faculty, and students. And we engage in the broader dialogue about how to improve higher education around the nation.
In these endeavors, we are motivated by the principles that have traditionally guided public policy in the United States: limits on government; freedom to pursue goals through voluntary means, both for-profit and nonprofit; accountability through private property rights; and the belief that competition is an excellent regulating force.
Interested in higher education? Subscribe below:
SEE:
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/
Donald L.Singleton, Ph.D. says
Stuff and nonsense. I dissent. Shall we be so tolerant and open minded that a University should allow a University Fraternity to sing “There ain’t no niggers in SAE” on an outing bus which was then posted to the internet. I think not. President David Boren of the University of Oklahoma very quickly banished the offending fraternity. The problem of being tolerant and open minded to all sorts of hate speech is that if you are too open minded your brains fall out.
Steven Cades says
Mr Freedlander has here written a reminder of the need to uphold liberal (in the 18th Century sense of the word) defense of free exchange of ideas in a public space. I fully concur. I take issue only with the omission of a single word.
“IIn a world dominated by nuance, American Jews too criticize the Netanyahu government for its oppression of Palestinians living on the West Bank. However, they do not voice anti-Semitic comments, only disappointment at the diminution of democracy in Israel.
Highly attuned to anti-Semitic comments and actions, Jews consider criticism of Zionism and Israeli policies toward Palestinians as code for anti-semitism. They may be right”
The missing word is “some,” omitted from the second paragraph—and that “some” might even be “most.” Absent statistical evidence, my guess is that most Jews, like me, distinguish between the value of the existence of the State of Israel and the immorality of the policies of its current government with respect to the Palestinians. I am hopeful that Mr. Freelander would concur.
Dan Richardson says
As a conservative I am always willing to hear and debate different viewpoints, unfortunately those who call themselves liberals are anything but. Shouting down opposing views, raising hell when a conservative speaker comes on a campus is not being liberal or open to free speech or thought. It’s well established that most university professors are of the liberal persuasion and frequently agree with these totalitarian tactics. I’m always amazed that many of the radicals of the 60s, who protested against “the man”, have become the man with more intolerance than their predecessors.
Joyce Miller says
It is a sad time, if we go back to the time of Viet Nam, and all the hatred directed to the innocent soldiers who were drafted into a war they did not want.
Young people just think about what is in front of them. They do not question or inquire about the other side. That comes later in life. I hope!
I think the academic world has a lot to do with it. They try to open the minds of our youth, but from only the side THEY believe. What happened to look at all sides, then evaluate what YOU believe. It is a lost art.
Never finished college, but think it was not necessary. I have learned more from life’s lessons, than from any book or professor.
Mickey Terrone says
I’d agree that we should listen to each other every day. Yet I believe much of the time, I’m talking (or writing) to “conservatives” who are actually radicals who don’t believe in a democratic republic anymore, would replace our constitution with a dictator and believe I’m a communist simply because I am a liberal democrat.
IMO, the Washington College students reacted irreverently because they felt were being trolled by a well-known bigot. The issue was whether or not those who invited this controversial speaker understood that person was advocating the suppression or denial of a certain segment of our society their full civil rights. Those who invited the controversial speaker should have known exactly what that person advocates.
The speaker advocates for bigotry. He was invited to offer his scholarly profession of bigotry couched perhaps in intellectual verbage. Is that conservatism? Is it “conservatism” to invite radicals like Milo Yiannopolis to troll audiences? I don’t think so. Any radical should be able to say or write anything they want, but that doesn’t necessarily include personal visits to college campuses where students are also able to express their attitudes toward bigotry. In this country, where millions have had to suffer and fight for their civil rights, let none of us pay respect to a bigot who will advocate against the civil rights and human dignity of any minority. Congratulations to the WC students.