Imagine standing trial for murder. Before the defense attorney is able to speak in your favor, the jury rises and finds you guilty. They are so convinced they are correct that they refuse to listen to the counter-arguments. Whether you truly are guilty ceases to be the question, and things do not look good for you or for any society that would allow this to happen.
Such occurrences are fortunately not common on our campus. However, a recent news article in The Dartmouth opened with the following: "Attendees at a discussion ran into protestors at the door of Filene Auditorium who argued that the subject should not be up for debate" ("Torture debate marked by protest from history prof.," Oct. 18). Although the words I omitted include "torturing wartime prisoners," and despite my disapproval of torture and coercive examination, this opening line alarmed me greatly. The subject of the protest is irrelevant; what is disturbing is that the act of protest itself suggests that one is justified in preventing discussion of a topic based solely on one's firm belief in correctness of his or her position.
Jon Wisniewski '07 asserts in his Oct. 24 column ("Supporting Free Speech When It Matters Most") that this shutting off of discussion should be unacceptable to people who claim to cherish free speech. However, in yesterday's response to that column, Andrew Seal '07 argues that opposition to the protest is also a restriction of freedom of expression, since we "cannot justify someone's right to free speech by taking away somebody else's rights to react openly" ("Conflicting Rights Claims," Oct. 26).
The protest, though, is doing exactly the above. The protesters "react[ed] openly" by trying to shut down dialogue on the issue. Their "we are clearly right, you are clearly wrong, so let's not talk about it" attitude is entirely out of place in a culture like ours, which operates on the basis of argument and a free market of ideas. Instead, every issue should be discussed, and the validity of positions on that issue determined by arguments presented in their favor. The protest would be perfectly justifiable if it expressed opposition to torture and targeted killings -- just the issue at hand -- instead of the discussion thereof.
Encountering argument is a constant part of living in America: our courts use an adversarial legal system; political candidates face off in campaign debates; schools emphasize writing skills necessary for effective argumentation. What would happen if all this dialogue were eliminated?
A catastrophe would befall us. The protestors' opposition to debate of a pressing policy issue reminded me of a similar historic example illustrating such a cataclysm. In 1836, a Gag Rule was adopted by the House of Representatives, declaring that the existence of slavery could not be debated in that legislative body. The "peculiar institution" continued for another 20 years, ultimately leading the nation to Civil War.
To avoid such disasters in the future, it is our responsibility to allow for discussion of every issue, and to evaluate our position on that issue by thoroughly considering various arguments. I saw this approach in action at the World Affairs Council meeting only a day after the notorious debate. The question of targeted executions and torture of war prisoners as policy instruments was raised without much controversy and participating students contributed a spectrum of legitimate points. Michael Belinsky '08's op-ed ("Avoiding the Extremes," Oct. 26) also presented a well-supported argument, which made the answer to the problem at hand much less obvious than suggested by the protest.
Were the protesters then opposed to debate because they were afraid their case would not withstand it? If the position they supported was indeed absolutely correct, a convincing argument could be constructed in its favor, which would be confirmed through discussion. However, if the position's correctness were at all questionable, its weak points would also become apparent. Protesting discussion of the issue instead of the opposing position on the issue therefore not only limits free speech, but also prevents serious evaluation -- and possible confirmation -- of the advocated position.
If preventing argumentation was acceptable, putting people on trial would not be necessary at all. A few people's assumptions of your guilt would become enough to prove it and you would be convicted of murder. And you most likely do not want that to happen.
