Enter to win every day in CTNOW's 21 Days of Summer Giveaways. Click here to see today's prize.

Free speech still under siege in the Ivy League

On April 15, 1974, William Shockley, the Nobel laureate who believed that blacks were less intelligent than whites, was supposed to debate William Rusher, the publisher of the National Review, at Yale University on the topic: “Resolved: That society has a moral obligation to diagnose and treat tragic racial IQ inferiority.” The debate never occurred.

As a faculty commission impaneled to study free expression at Yale later reported: “For the first time in memory a speaker tried to speak at a scheduled appearance at Yale and was prevented from doing so by organized disruption.... The speakers were not permitted to say an audible word. They were drowned out by derisive applause, insults chanted at Shockley and shouted obscenities.”

The commission, headed by the legendary historian C. Vann Woodward, faulted “various elements in the university community” for an insufficient commitment to free speech. It made the  elementary point that members of the audience at a speech “are under an obligation to comply with a general standard of civility.” They can “briefly” boo, clap or heckle, the report said, but “any disruptive activity must stop when the chair or an appropriate university official requests silence.”

Flash forward four decades. On Tuesday, a speech at Brown University by New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was canceled after opponents of the city’s “stop and frisk” policy disrupted the event. Communities United for Police Reform, a group that has criticized the stop-and-frisk policy, issued a statement nonchalantly observing that it wasn’t shocking that Kelly “would be poorly received” given the fact that he had presided over a discriminatory policy.

In other words, Kelly had forfeited his right to free speech, just as Shockley supposedly did in the 1970s.

Arguments for free speech, even in a university setting, can seem like thin stuff to activists who burn bright with outrage over evils they consider worse than censorship (and racism is such an evil for them). But the Woodward report makes a powerful case for the proposition that shutting down speech is not the answer. It's available online. The students who shouted down Kelly should read it.

ALSO:

Obama's big lie

Throw out Obamacare? Yes, and give us a single-payer system.

Obamacare: Unfair to the young middle class, punished enough already

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • Supreme Court errs on Texas' Confederate-themed license plates

    Supreme Court errs on Texas' Confederate-themed license plates

    Many Americans who find the Confederate battle flag offensive will have no problem with the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday that Texas was free to reject a specialty license plate that incorporated that flag in its design. But the 5-4 decision was a mistake that undermines an important principle:...

  • UC's PC police

    UC's PC police

    Calling affirmative action "racist" is an example of a racial "microaggression," says the University of California administration. Other examples of supposed microaggressions: "America is a melting pot," "I believe the most qualified person should get the job," "Gender plays no part in who we hire"...

  • Iran's trial of Washington Post writer: Secrecy, not justice

    A Revolutionary Court judge in Tehran held a two-hour hearing Tuesday in the espionage trial of Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was born and raised in the Bay Area and holds dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship. Because the court proceedings are secret and the indictment remains under...

  • Readers defend free speech after Texas shooting

    Readers defend free speech after Texas shooting

    In the aftermath of the shooting deaths of two people at a Garland, Texas, event on Sunday featuring a "draw Muhammad" contest, many readers directed their anger at the gunmen and another subject that had nothing to do with the killings: The Times.

  • Anti-Muslim event is protected free speech even if offensive

    Anti-Muslim event is protected free speech even if offensive

    Pamela Geller, whose organization's Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest was attacked by two gunmen Sunday, has made offensive comments about Islam. But that in no way undermines her right to free speech or legitimizes violence against her or anyone else.

  • Charlie Hebdo cartoonists: heroes or racists? The answer's not that simple

    Charlie Hebdo cartoonists: heroes or racists? The answer's not that simple

    Years ago, I served on a jury that had trouble making up its mind. After we sent the judge one too many questions, he brought us back into the courtroom to impress upon us a distinction. There are questions of law and there are questions of fact, he said. It wasn't up to us to decide what was against...

  • From antiwar armbands to American flag shirts

    From antiwar armbands to American flag shirts

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of some California high school students who were ordered to remove or hide shirts showing the American flag.

  • Court ruling shows hazy high school freedom

    Court ruling shows hazy high school freedom

    Almost half a century ago, in a case involving students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court proclaimed that schoolchildren don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This week the court declined to hear...

Comments
Loading

90°