FREEDOM OF SPEECH DIES AT HARVARD
Posted in political on March 14th, 2006
The First Amendment to the Constitution is probably the best know of all the twenty-seven Amendments, it may also be the most important. Sitting at the top of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 amendments) it stands majestic in its simplicity. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In Constitutional law circles it is broken down into clauses, such as; the establishment clause, the exercise clause, the freedom of speech clause, etc.. We’ll be dealing with the freedom of speech clause today, and to further simplify, we’ll leave the arts out of it, as that’s a whole column in itself. Freedom of Speech is vital to most everything we consider American, without it, I could not write these columns without fear of reprisal. It’s held dear and close by the press, media, bloggers, war protesters, war supporters, and anyone else who has an issue they feel at the very, very, least should be heard. Free dialog is something we should never fear. Sound ideas will support themselves and bad ideas will show themselves. Suppressing someone else’s right to a different opinion is to show your own opinion cannot stand the light of debate. No matter how much you disagree, always and I mean always, allow people to express any opinion short of calling for direct threat or physical harm. You’ll notice here that I said “physical” harm. Hyper extending this clause to include feelings will only erode your rights. It hurts my feelings whenever one of you disagrees with me, but it shouldn’t affect your right to disagree, and as far as hateful words, they only work to make the user seem ignorant anyway, and I’m all for letting people show their inability to prove a point without them. Name calling is the last resort of someone with no valid argument.
Unfortunately, this is not an idea supported by our universities. While clinging dearly to their own right to speak freely, they have decided to limit free speech to only statements that do not hurt anyone’s feelings. The process they use to determine what words should be excluded is to form a committee of advocates, (only the ones they determine are justified) and create polices that satisfy them. Imagine the power you would have over someone if you could limit their statements in any argument. Husband, “I’d like to discuss the division of chores around here. Wife,”O.K. but your limited to only the ones I want to talk about, the rest hurt my feelings.” How could you talk honestly? All the power is in the wife’s hands. This is the game they play, by excluding even the suggestion of something they disagree with; there is no chance of them losing the argument.
This applies to almost ever issue on campus, suggest anything opposite of what they advocate and risk being called sexist, bigoted, racist, or worse. Your opinions won’t be heard in classrooms, printed in newspapers, allowed in discussions or even considered by policy makers. It’s important to note here that not all professors or administrators agree with what goes on, they’re just too afraid of losing their job or being ostracized to speak up. Fear of losing a discussion has turned these advocates into the greatest threat to free speech we have today. Don’t be fooled by their support for fellow advocates, or the arts, the only speech they will allow is what fits their agenda.
What is it they fear so much? Are their ideas so indefensible that an opposite opinion must not be heard? Is the proof in panel discussions tilted heavily in their favor?
Well look no further then the high profile case of Harvard President Larry Summers for proof of what these people will do to silence opposing views, or even the suggestion of one.
Larry Summers, became Harvard’s 27th president on July 1, 2001. He has a Bachelor’s degree from M.I.T. and a PHD in economics, but was probably best know as the past Secretary of Treasury for President Clinton, not exactly a conservative resume’. Dr. Summers got off to a bad start when he had the nerve to question Cornell West about his failure to produce anything beyond a rap CD in the past twenty years. Cornell West is a fairly well know black activist who manages to drag home $600,000 a year while teaching one or two classes a semester at Harvard. He spends most of his time on talk shows or giving speeches. The very idea of questioning one of the lefts icons put Dr. Summers in bad graces with them.
It was not, however, that move that got a bull’s-eye painted on Dr. Summers, it was four years later during a informal meeting to discuss the lack of women in math and science class that proved to be his undoing. After a presentation by the faculty supporting the idea that the underlining reason for this shortage was discrimination and sexism, Larry Summers had the nerve to suggest that other factors ‘may’ have contributed to the end result. The full transcript of Dr. Summers statements can be found at; www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html To summarize, he simply asked if it was possible that “innate” differences between men and women might be the reason for the shortage. He went on to point out that very few women who had achieved high ranking status in these fields had children or were married, therefore, he theorized, it may be that those feilds have too high a level of commitment for women who are seeking both family and career. He went on to point out that the top 10% of high school students in science and math was dominated by males, in some studies as high as 80%, and perhaps that explained the difference in enrollment.
This inflamed the female faculty who would accept no explanation other than prejudice. One biologist, Nancy Hopkins, over dramatized that she was so shocked to hear another thesis that she had to walk out, explaining, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up” had she not left. Several other faculty members stormed off in disgust with her. Remember all Dr. Summers did was to suggest that there may be other possibilities. Advocate faculty are so entrenched in the idea that everything is based in bias and prejudice that even the suggestion of another answer is, in and of itself, prejudice.
The faculty of Arts and Sciences then began a campaign against Dr. Summers, obstructing every function and objective he was involved in. To see how this is done, just observe any conservative speaker on your local campus. Advocates flood the audience, yelling, disrupting, rudely screaming comments, and not allowing their point of view to even be heard.
This friends, is not freedom of speech. You have the right to protest, but not to obstruct the other position from being heard. Once again, their goal is for their argument to be the only one considered. Under continuing attack, Larry Summers finally resigned, sighting pressure from faculty had made it “infeasible” to lead. It’s interesting to note here that a poll by the Crimson Press at Harvard, right before he resigned, showed Dr. Summers was supported by 2/3 of the students and the majority of the faculty.
Is this to be the future of our Universities? Are we to be so cow towed by advocate faculty that no one dare even question their statements? Where is the free speech in all this? Isn’t this really indoctrination into one point of view?
In conclusion, I would suggest to any parent of a University student to go see what your money has bought you. Go to a few of these functions and note how dialog from opposing views is silenced. See how panels are filled with people from one side with maybe one representative of the opposing side, who is shouted down by student groups. Watch as their opinions stand unheard, and witness what can only be described as the death of free speech on campus. H.C.
Posted in political on March 14th, 2006
The First Amendment to the Constitution is probably the best know of all the twenty-seven Amendments, it may also be the most important. Sitting at the top of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 amendments) it stands majestic in its simplicity. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In Constitutional law circles it is broken down into clauses, such as; the establishment clause, the exercise clause, the freedom of speech clause, etc.. We’ll be dealing with the freedom of speech clause today, and to further simplify, we’ll leave the arts out of it, as that’s a whole column in itself. Freedom of Speech is vital to most everything we consider American, without it, I could not write these columns without fear of reprisal. It’s held dear and close by the press, media, bloggers, war protesters, war supporters, and anyone else who has an issue they feel at the very, very, least should be heard. Free dialog is something we should never fear. Sound ideas will support themselves and bad ideas will show themselves. Suppressing someone else’s right to a different opinion is to show your own opinion cannot stand the light of debate. No matter how much you disagree, always and I mean always, allow people to express any opinion short of calling for direct threat or physical harm. You’ll notice here that I said “physical” harm. Hyper extending this clause to include feelings will only erode your rights. It hurts my feelings whenever one of you disagrees with me, but it shouldn’t affect your right to disagree, and as far as hateful words, they only work to make the user seem ignorant anyway, and I’m all for letting people show their inability to prove a point without them. Name calling is the last resort of someone with no valid argument.
Unfortunately, this is not an idea supported by our universities. While clinging dearly to their own right to speak freely, they have decided to limit free speech to only statements that do not hurt anyone’s feelings. The process they use to determine what words should be excluded is to form a committee of advocates, (only the ones they determine are justified) and create polices that satisfy them. Imagine the power you would have over someone if you could limit their statements in any argument. Husband, “I’d like to discuss the division of chores around here. Wife,”O.K. but your limited to only the ones I want to talk about, the rest hurt my feelings.” How could you talk honestly? All the power is in the wife’s hands. This is the game they play, by excluding even the suggestion of something they disagree with; there is no chance of them losing the argument.
This applies to almost ever issue on campus, suggest anything opposite of what they advocate and risk being called sexist, bigoted, racist, or worse. Your opinions won’t be heard in classrooms, printed in newspapers, allowed in discussions or even considered by policy makers. It’s important to note here that not all professors or administrators agree with what goes on, they’re just too afraid of losing their job or being ostracized to speak up. Fear of losing a discussion has turned these advocates into the greatest threat to free speech we have today. Don’t be fooled by their support for fellow advocates, or the arts, the only speech they will allow is what fits their agenda.
What is it they fear so much? Are their ideas so indefensible that an opposite opinion must not be heard? Is the proof in panel discussions tilted heavily in their favor?
Well look no further then the high profile case of Harvard President Larry Summers for proof of what these people will do to silence opposing views, or even the suggestion of one.
Larry Summers, became Harvard’s 27th president on July 1, 2001. He has a Bachelor’s degree from M.I.T. and a PHD in economics, but was probably best know as the past Secretary of Treasury for President Clinton, not exactly a conservative resume’. Dr. Summers got off to a bad start when he had the nerve to question Cornell West about his failure to produce anything beyond a rap CD in the past twenty years. Cornell West is a fairly well know black activist who manages to drag home $600,000 a year while teaching one or two classes a semester at Harvard. He spends most of his time on talk shows or giving speeches. The very idea of questioning one of the lefts icons put Dr. Summers in bad graces with them.
It was not, however, that move that got a bull’s-eye painted on Dr. Summers, it was four years later during a informal meeting to discuss the lack of women in math and science class that proved to be his undoing. After a presentation by the faculty supporting the idea that the underlining reason for this shortage was discrimination and sexism, Larry Summers had the nerve to suggest that other factors ‘may’ have contributed to the end result. The full transcript of Dr. Summers statements can be found at; www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html To summarize, he simply asked if it was possible that “innate” differences between men and women might be the reason for the shortage. He went on to point out that very few women who had achieved high ranking status in these fields had children or were married, therefore, he theorized, it may be that those feilds have too high a level of commitment for women who are seeking both family and career. He went on to point out that the top 10% of high school students in science and math was dominated by males, in some studies as high as 80%, and perhaps that explained the difference in enrollment.
This inflamed the female faculty who would accept no explanation other than prejudice. One biologist, Nancy Hopkins, over dramatized that she was so shocked to hear another thesis that she had to walk out, explaining, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up” had she not left. Several other faculty members stormed off in disgust with her. Remember all Dr. Summers did was to suggest that there may be other possibilities. Advocate faculty are so entrenched in the idea that everything is based in bias and prejudice that even the suggestion of another answer is, in and of itself, prejudice.
The faculty of Arts and Sciences then began a campaign against Dr. Summers, obstructing every function and objective he was involved in. To see how this is done, just observe any conservative speaker on your local campus. Advocates flood the audience, yelling, disrupting, rudely screaming comments, and not allowing their point of view to even be heard.
This friends, is not freedom of speech. You have the right to protest, but not to obstruct the other position from being heard. Once again, their goal is for their argument to be the only one considered. Under continuing attack, Larry Summers finally resigned, sighting pressure from faculty had made it “infeasible” to lead. It’s interesting to note here that a poll by the Crimson Press at Harvard, right before he resigned, showed Dr. Summers was supported by 2/3 of the students and the majority of the faculty.
Is this to be the future of our Universities? Are we to be so cow towed by advocate faculty that no one dare even question their statements? Where is the free speech in all this? Isn’t this really indoctrination into one point of view?
In conclusion, I would suggest to any parent of a University student to go see what your money has bought you. Go to a few of these functions and note how dialog from opposing views is silenced. See how panels are filled with people from one side with maybe one representative of the opposing side, who is shouted down by student groups. Watch as their opinions stand unheard, and witness what can only be described as the death of free speech on campus. H.C.
1 comment:
Hey Hipster,
There's an interesting article that was just published in the December 15th edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education by Emory Professor Mark Bauerlin entitled: "How Academe Shortchanges Conservative Thinking". In it, he makes a pretty compelling argument how universities have all but elimniated the conservative ideology from public institutions.
He argues that there is very little attention given to conservative platforms; despite those platforms being avaiable proportionately in other outlets (i.e. the media).
After reading his article (I'm warning you in advance, it's pretty long); and your post, I have to agree with you. There isn't enough of a conservative voice at most public universities.
I suspect that it's because the conservative philosophy is typically associated with being 'traditional' and unaccepting of universal ideas while the liberal idealogy is just the opposite. I agree with that idea -- to some extent. But what's interesting to me is that even the liberal ideology can be pretty unaccepting of ideas (i.e. the idea that NOT EVERYTHING in this world should be so 'liberal'). For example, the true "liberal" who advocates free speech needs to advocate it for their group and the groups with whom they disagree as well.
That -- to me -- makes universities hypocritical. If they only subscribe to liberal perspectives and silence the conservative perspective, they are not embracing the universality that they claim is important in colleges.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment