To the Editor:
In his letter to the editor on May 3, "A Misunderstanding," Jon Hollander '03 compares a "Dartmouth Indian" T-shirt with a T-shirt reading "World Trade Center victims got what they deserved" to show that wearing either of the shirts "victimizes those who have suffered." Thus, he says, the debate is not about speech, because wearing either of these T-shirts is, though legal, morally abhorrent. Of course, since you can't (or at least shouldn't) legislate morality, I'm not sure why Hollander makes this point.
Let's also keep in mind that there is a reason that this kind of speech is legal. Even if Hollander wore the World Trade Center T-shirt, he would not have "victimized" or harmed those affected by Sept. 11, he merely would have offended and insulted them. In fact, by comparing those deadly attacks to a cartoon mascot, Hollander has done just that.
The lesson here is if we prevent people from offending or insulting others, then we prevent them from expressing themselves, since nearly all substantive speech will offend one or more of the 5 billion-plus citizens of earth. I personally choose not to wear an "Indian" T-shirt so as not to insult even the small minority of Native Americans (about 20 percent, according to a recent Sports Illustrated study) who find it offensive. I would argue, however, that it's not morally wrong to offend even a majority of Native Americans -- just as long as they have the right to respond. And that's what's so great about free speech.
