Under what circumstances can democracy survive? Political scientist Robert Dahl argues in his book "Polyarchy" (1971) that the citizens of a democratic state must be allowed to "formulate preferences" and "signify their preferences" by means of "individual and collective action." This action can come in the form of speech and other forms of public expression. Based on Dahl's assertions, it may be prudent to ask the following question: What is democracy without freedom of speech? In more specific terms, at what point does political correctness infringe upon our inherent right to free expression?
That The Primary Source was forced into self−censorship because of its provocative treatment of affirmative action (the publication removed the piece from its website) testifies to the high level of political correctness within the Tufts' community. Contrary to Ryan Heman's argument in his Feb. 15 op−ed, "More speech, not less, and certainly not hate speech," political correctness is the issue here. Free speech should not be thrown out in favor of sensitivity. Those who felt victimized or offended by The Primary Source's piece on affirmative action had every right — and perhaps even an obligation — to respond. But if we rely on filtered exchange instead of honest opinion, intellectual growth becomes nearly impossible. While the fact that the Primary Source printed a piece as offensive as "O Come, All Ye Black Folk" should have undermined its credibility as an intellectual publication, it should not have prompted calls for censorship, like when then−senior Biodun Kajopaiye declared, "I urge [the] Senate to ask campus publications to make a lifelong pledge to say that they won't do things to offend different communities." Freedom of speech was the real victim here.
Heman also argued in his op−ed that hate speech is not conducive to "intellectual discourse." Although this may be true, I would hesitate in classifying The Primary Source's carol on affirmative action as tantamount to hate speech. I would not consider it morally justifiable or journalistically responsible either, but this brings me to an important detail: "Good morals" and freedom of speech do not necessarily have to be compatible. Allow me to explain this point further. Many of us are familiar with the town of Skokie, Ill., a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago which, during the late 1970s, found itself at the center of a national debate over First Amendment rights. Neo−Nazis expressed an intention to march through the town, and the majority of Skokie's citizens expressed outrage at the thought of such a possibility.
Just how broadly could the First Amendment protect U.S. citizens? Was it possible to extend liberty even to those who are bent on destroying the very pillars of freedom and equality that vitalize democracy? The case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, and in 1977 the Court ruled in favor of the neo−Nazis' right to demonstrate. The First Amendment protects hateful and insulting speech, so long as that speech does not directly incite action that threatens human life.
Democracy relies upon various institutional frameworks in order to maintain stability and legitimacy, including regularly held elections, vigorous competition between opposing political forces and basic rights including freedom of association, religion and, of course, expression. The point is that to limit freedom of expression is to limit democracy.
Thus, demanding that offensive publications be banned or censored is irreconcilable with the basic tenets of a free, democratic society. I would expect the Tufts community to uphold these democratic principles and encourage the expansion of — not the limitation of — dialogue and expression, no matter how uncomfortable this process may be.
For if we cannot uphold the principle of free expression, where do we stand as a society?
--
