In 1994, professor and literary critic Stanley Fish told the world that, "There is no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing too." He argued that the "free speech" label is and always has been a political tool used for the purposes of advancing an individual or a group agenda. When the freedom of speech, among other freedoms, was denied to minorities, the Democratic movement seized the chance to employ free speech rhetoric to galvanize the public towards political and social emancipation of minorities. But I believe that free speech is an effective political tool because America's commitment to free speech transcends the political sphere. This implies that certain political compromises must be made lest we become hypocrites of our own cause.
Our free society believes that free speech ought to exist for both ethical and prudential reasons. Ethically, restrictions on freedom are by their nature unjust and should be kept to a minimum. Freedom should be allowed to the extent that it does not prevent or hinder another's freedom. We have a dark history of obstructing freedoms and we have learned from our history. Prudentially, liberalism states that a system protecting the free expression of all opinions provides the best mechanism for reaching the truth in any argument. If we commit to this logic (mostly the essence of the democratic liberalism which our nation preaches to the world), can we then justify restraining the freedom of certain political ideologies? Certainly not.
Even accepting liberal democracy, some argue that the positive correlation between education and Liberalization (capital L) clearly proves the correctness of left-wing ideology. There is nothing clear about that correlation. I argue that the self-perpetuating indoctrination of academia is responsible for the leftward tendencies of its graduates. A system of learning in which one ideology predominates cannot help but display an ideological bias in its teaching; this system indoctrinates by definition. And when indoctrination by academia becomes a prerequisite to participation in the academia, the mechanism for self-perpetuation obtains. Such conditions inadvertently create a tyranny of the majority, stifling the introduction of competing ideas into the campus dialogue. This is both ironic and harmful to our campus. It is ironic because conservatism predominates in our country; a majority of Americans identify themselves as conservatives and Republicans hold majority in the House and Senate. Most college students, living in a liberal bubble, could not even understand how Kerry's defeat was possible. This is harmful for two reasons. First, students are not exposed to conservative arguments and the supporting logic. Second, conservative students have less access to like-minded professors with real-world connections, an essential resource of post-College life.
Others argue that the conservative position is outright wrong and thus has no value in an education system. This clearly contradicts the classical liberalist position. I myself am a moderate liberal and I disagree with much of the conservative position, but I will, to paraphrase Voltaire, defend to death their right to express it. I argue that even the most fundamental facts have been disproved over time and that the current facts are merely that -- "accepted" not absolute. The change over time of that which we accept as fact is the exact reason why a plurality of viewpoints remains essential to a liberal democracy. Moreover, many liberal scholars, educators, and intellectuals identify with a religion and adhere to the "holy texts." Second, religion exists in every part of the political spectrum, but that does not mean that it defines reality absolutely and without exception. My own adherence to the Torah does not make my reality any less intolerant or un-democratic. Such anti-religion stances and other popular generalizations of conservative ideology lead many liberals to disregard the conservative position without giving it any thought. Bias prohibits students from learning from the clash of competing viewpoints.
John Stuart Mill wrote in "On Liberty" that mankind would gain more by "suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." An adherence to a liberal democracy implies commitments to certain ideals, such as freedom of expression and respect for minorities, racial or ideological. Certain compromises have to be made and we have to come to terms with them. Until we do so, we will remain hypocrites, promoting liberty and democracy everywhere except where it conflicts with our personal interests.
