Opinion
Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Opinion L.A.

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, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The 1st Amendment and Israeli-Palestinian bus ads
    The 1st Amendment and Israeli-Palestinian bus ads

    The primary purpose of municipal buses is to transport passengers, not to serve as billboards on wheels. But if a transit agency decides to allow issue advertising on its vehicles, it shouldn't be able to pick and choose on the basis of the subject matter. That's what Seattle's transit system...

  • Obama forgets about free speech when it comes to mandatory voting
    Obama forgets about free speech when it comes to mandatory voting

    The next time President Obama wants to suggest that mandatory voting might be a good idea for America, he should try checking in first with the Bill of Rights. And then decide that the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of political speech far outweighs our collective desire to see...

  • More pressure mounts on Dan Snyder to change the racial epithet that is his NFL team's name
    More pressure mounts on Dan Snyder to change the racial epithet that is his NFL team's name

    So far, Dan Snyder, the unrepentant owner of the Washington Redskins professional football team, has faced down pressure from President Obama, half of the U.S. Senate, some Native Americans and activists, federal trademark authorities and about 40% of players in the National Football...

  • How 'Je suis Charlie' makes matters worse
    How 'Je suis Charlie' makes matters worse

    The public response to the massacre of journalists at Charlie Hebdo has been articulated as a gesture of solidarity: “Je suis Charlie.” It has been chanted by marchers in the Place de la Republique, and repeated on Hollywood stages. It has the appeal of hashtag simplicity and bumper...

  • What's more important, freedom or safety? Mothering in the shadow of Charlie Hebdo
    What's more important, freedom or safety? Mothering in the shadow of Charlie Hebdo

    Watching the news on the Paris massacre at Charlie Hebdo last week, my son asked, “Mom, what would you say NOW is more important, freedom or safety?” At 17, Theo adamantly supports Hebdo’s right to print irreverent and inflammatory images. But I knew he was referring to more...

  • A sign of discrimination in Arizona town
    A sign of discrimination in Arizona town

    A sign posted on or near a public highway is an expression of speech, but it also can pose safety and aesthetic problems. A community should be free to regulate the distraction and clutter created by public signage so long as it doesn't pick and choose on the basis of the signs' content.

  • Don't beat up on Obama for avoiding the 'I word'
    Don't beat up on Obama for avoiding the 'I word'

    The highlight -- or lowlight -- of Monday’s White House news briefing was the admission by Press Secretary Josh Earnest that “we should have sent someone with a higher profile” to Sunday’s anti-terrorist rally in Paris. But Earnest was also roughed up about an omission...

  • Technology's role in the increased violence against journalists
    Technology's role in the increased violence against journalists

    The murderous attack on the office of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week can be seen in the context of modern French society: its challenges assimilating immigrants, its ongoing efforts to preserve its liberal and secular political culture, and even its national affinity...

Comments
Loading