Yesterday, an individual proclaiming himself to be "proudly affiliated with The Review" employed a popular conservative argument tactic to garner legitimacy to his cause; he did not present a defense of why a banner, believed to be associated with The Dartmouth Review, said what it said, but rather defended the right to freedom of speech. Here, I wish to offer a few criticisms of his position.
The claim is that many at the rally were horribly disgusted by the fact that the words on the plane's banner were even displayed. Not entirely true. Instead, in seems rather obvious that it was the content on the banner that frustrated people. This ire arose because the banner advocated the ridiculous far-right, likely doomed-to-fail proposal that will overnight turn 11 million people into felons and hold those who know this information responsible for "aiding and abetting felons."
But even if part of the shock arose from the fact that these words were presented, there is justification for this -- these words were flat-out offensive to some who participated in the rally. Unsurprisingly, the message's branding of upstanding people as criminals hit many at the protest on a level that conservatives discount as real; the emotional. What the articulators of this position don't realize -- as evidenced by their utter contempt for non-offensive terminology and by the insistence of Dartmouth Review members wearing t-shirts and hats bearing the old and offensive Dartmouth logo -- is that words and images can be construed as offensive and judgmental. Yet judging, what yesterday's piece exhorts us not to do but is time and time again done by groups such as The Review, can trigger deep emotional sensibilities. And when this happens, how can one be surprised when hostile reactions occur? True, no speech is wrong; but not all speech is right either.
To those holding this position: when will you come around and see that what you snub as "political correctness" can be a vehicle to move yourselves from being perceived as "despicable plagues" -- a term I find to be a little harsh -- to being viewed as effective participants in an ongoing debate. Need a road map? Let's take Monday as a hypothetical example.
You know that Monday was a day of protest, correct? You also know that you disagreed with the position of the protestors, correct? So, why didn't you organize an event or two of your own! You could have scheduled a peaceful counter-protest where people showed their faces instead of impersonally attaching their position to the back of a plane. Granted, if you had organized a counter-protest, the original organizers, following the lead of your beloved White House administration, would have been allowed to sequester your cause to a cage somewhere down by the second hole of the golf course where no journalists would have been allowed to go. But hey! At least a few angry golfers would have heard your voices.
You could have also scheduled a public, mediated debate (far different from a discussion format) between a member of your organization and a protestor or a democrat. This debate could have been well advertised and, taking the money that was spent on the plane banner, used to purchase tasty refreshments and snacks. This would have allowed your position to be clearly articulated, debated and popularly examined in a neutral environment. Public debate would have also humanized the issue. It's one thing to fly a banner over a protest and quite another to look your neighbor in the eye, the one who is a grandson of illegal immigrants, and tell him that his loving grandfather is the legal equivalent of a rapist.
I have two points here. The first is that the Review position must recognize that though we have freedom of speech in this country, this freedom comes with great responsibility. This is the responsibility to use our speech in a manner that is respectful of other people in this country -- a responsibility that should especially be exercised when you are on the other side of a peaceful assembly.
The second is that before the Review position gets all up in arms that people reacted to their handling of Monday's situation and claim that debate was stifled, they must realize that flying a banner over a rally or entering a lecture hall with offensive signs disrupts groups' rights to peacefully assemble. It also does nothing to encourage the true debate that yesterday's opinion criticizes others from discouraging.
