BY ABIGAIL GRABER

In print | October 11, 2007

Freeing Speech, the editorial from last week’s edition of The Phoenix, was one of the most disappointing and upsetting pieces of journalism that I have ever read on the Swarthmore campus. The article shows an appalling lack of understanding of the meaning and importance of free speech in our society. It distorts the circumstances surrounding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University to promote the false notion that every opinion deserves a debate and that we live in a world of speech without consequences.

Setting aside the fact that Ahmadinejad is not an American citizen, no First Amendment issue was at stake when Columbia invited Ahmadinejad to speak. The Phoenix correctly states that Ahmadinejad had every right to voice [his]¦opinion[]. If Ahmadinejad had stood upon a milk crate in the middle of a public forum (say, Central Park) and proclaimed that the Holocaust did not happen, no one could have constitutionally stopped him. But Ahmadinejad had no more right to speak at a podium to a packed lecture hall at Columbia University than I have. Columbia did not recognize his right. They granted him a privilegethe privilege of a microphone and an audience; the privilege of news cameras and reporters. They enabled a famous Holocaust denier and homophobic bigot to publicize his views to as wide an audience as possible, to the detriment of using their limited resources to engage in other, productive debates.

My argument is not merely semantic, but goes to the core of the purpose of free speech. As Chief Justice Holmes once wrote, [T]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. One can legitimately argue that universities ought to make a proactive attempt to correct inequalities in the marketplace of ideas. That is, they should promote the airing of intelligent opinions that are inherently disadvantagedthe opinions of economic or racial minorities, for example, who have unequal access to publicity.

In this situation, there was no marketplace inequality to correct. Students gained no more insight into foreign mindsets (The Phoenix’s euphemism for rationalizations of bigotry and antisemitism) than they would have reading the regular coverage of Ahmadinejad’s speeches in The New York Times.

To say that Columbia’s gesture promoted free speech is another euphemismColumbia did not promote free speech but hate speech. If there was ever a losing thought in the marketplace of ideas, Holocaust denial is it. Yet, by granting Ahmadinejad the use of their space, Columbia lent a veneer of legitimacy to his position that it did not deserve; they trumped the established decision of the marketplace to reject such inexcusable views. The event was characteristic of the American media’s persistent attempts to cover every argument in the framework of point-counterpoint.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger took the stand and insulted Ahmadinejad; Ahmadinejad took the stand and defended himself. It was a farcical shadow of debate, but it had the legitimizing format of a debate nonetheless. Ahmadinejad should not have been given the opportunity to defend himself, because his positions are indefensible. To refuse Ahmadinejad would not have not violated free speech, but highlighted another aspect of free speech: the freedom of individuals and private institutions to say no to certain ideas, to say that they will not lend them their support, to say that they will not lend them their credibility.

Columbia could have sparked a healthy discourse about free speech by simply publicizing Ahmadinejad’s request to speak on campus along with their official rejection, explaining the reasons for their decision. Of course, then there would have been fewer protestors and fewer news cameras, but the campus could have held a debate on the appropriateness of the decision nonetheless.

In conclusion, The Phoenix’s declaration that the opinions of others, no matter how controversial, must still be respected is beyond condemnation. Respect for free speech does not deprive society and individuals of the ability to make moral judgments. Iran’s treatment of sexual minorities is a moral abomination.

The Holocaust was a moral abomination. Holocaust denial is a moral abomination. There is no debate to be had on these subjects and no respect to be given to those who insist otherwise.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »