EVERY DAY I am reminded of a quote by a rather famous gentleman by the name of Thomas Jefferson. It says the following: "For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it." In fact, direct your eyes to the left hand corner of this page and you might just find these words of wisdom printed religiously every day by our very school newspaper, The Cavalier Daily.
Take a second to read that quote, and then read it again.
In light of the incidents surrounding David Horowitz's attempts to publish a controversial advertisement condemning reparations of slavery in collegiate newspapers, Mr. Jefferson's words of wisdom should bear a hefty new significance. Several collegiate newspapers have refused to print the ad, with the notable exception of The Brown Daily Herald. Students' reactions to the publication of the ad at Brown University, and the refusal of several newspapers to print the ad, illustrates our failure as educated, intelligent and mature citizens. It shows that, according to Mr. Jefferson's compelling claim, a lot of us are either intolerant of dissent or incapable of reason.
Let me make one thing clear before I elaborate further: The controversy surrounding Horowitz has very little to do with a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The fact remains that David Horowitz is entitled to voice his opinion, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It is limited by certain conditions, such as a newspaper's legitimate discretion to print whatever it wants to print. In fact, using coercion or monetary compensation to influence a newspaper to print something undermines the very foundation of freedom of press. There is no doubt that Horowitz has many other mediums through which to exercise his freedom of speech.
|
The real problem illustrated by this controversy lies in our inability to acknowledge an unpopular opinion and to correct its errors in judgment by debating the substance behind it.
I vehemently disagree with Horowitz's assertions, but as I look over the ad that has now been rejected by over 23 college newspapers, I realize that I am perusing through nothing but a set of arguments that support a unpopular opinion. Horowitz's ad is not the work of a basketcase trying to prove that two plus two equals five, nor is it similar to the controversy last year of a circulating ad that challenged the existence of the Holocaust as a historical fact. It is an opinion, an argument at that, which rarely challenges factual knowledge but rather contests the way in which we perceive the very sensitive subject of race.
This is precisely why the ad deserves a response, if not an audience. A response does not mean storming into newsrooms like twitching babies and tearing up the physical evidence, nor does it entail the subtle approach of repressing the opinion through "filtering." A response entails a formal argument or a presentation of evidence to show why Horowitz is wrong when he says "the reparations argument is based on the unfounded claim the African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the economic consequence of slavery and discrimination." It deserves, in essence, a counter-opinion.
Unfortunately, some of the best and brightest college students of the country failed to live up to the challenge. Some have answered that Horowitz's arguments don't dignify an answer or that the ad should be censored simply for its offensive nature.
These half-witted responses implicate the following claims: A society that prides itself in preserving a free marketplace of ideas legitimately can exclude all opinions which don't conform to mainstream thought. If an argument or opinion contains an error in judgment, we are to let it simmer in its own ignorance rather than use our reason to "combat it."
The issue that Horowitz touched on is certainly a sensitive one, and rehashing one of the more deplorable institutions of American history is bound to ignite fiery emotions. We must remember, however, that unpopular and controversial opinions are not meant to be touchy-feely; that is why they're unpopular. One of the challenges of a democratic society lies in handling these opinions through the free marketplace of ideas, rather than suppressing them whenever they pose a challenge.
I urge students across the country to prove that we are not afraid of the challenge Mr. Horowitz has presented to us, and that we are not afraid to "tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at frana@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 22 hours agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
