THE ENTIRE premise of "freedom of speech" is that there is no absolute truth, no absolute orthodoxy. Freedom of speech, therefore, seems to require a certain moral relativism on the part of citizens. After all, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote, "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."
But this ideal comes into sharp contradiction with reality, as most Americans are strongly committed to dogmas regardless of their truth. This fact points to the idea that for all of our rhetoric about "freedom of speech," most of us do not really value this principle in our actual lives. American society is really not all that committed to freedom of speech as an abstract ideal, but only as a sort of procedural governing principle, like the requirement that legislation be passed by not just one but both houses of Congress. The marketplace of ideas does not always produce "truth," but rather simply reflects prevailing societal dogmas and prejudices, because our society more often punishes unpopular views rather than respecting them.
A good example is the recent experience of Bill Bennett, who was greeted with devastating ad hominem attacks for his recent speculation that crime rates would decrease if every black baby were aborted, noting that such would be morally reprehensible. Bennett was labeled a racist because of the implications of the idea that race correlates with crime, not for the theoretical validity of this idea. In fact, the debate about whether race correlates with crime rates is not as cut and dry as the discussion in popular media would lead one to believe. Yet the marketplace of ideas remains rigidly closed to honest debate on this issue.
Further evidence of our subtle dislike of free speech comes from the recent experience of University of Chicago professor Daniel Drezner, operator of a high-profile, self-titled blog, who has what Inside Higher Ed has characterized as a "stellar" publication record. Drezner was recently denied tenure, and another Chicago professor and blog operator was recently denied, as well. While, of course, the exact reasons for Drezner's tenure denial are not known and Drezner and others have cautioned against inferring anything, the fact of having a high-profile blog -- of speaking too much -- has been overwhelmingly recognized as a negative element in the tenure process. Drezner noted on the first day of his blog, "I shouldn't be doing this. I'll be going up for tenure soon," and others have come forward to support this view. One anonymous professor on a tenure committee averred, "More often that not, however, the blog was a negative, and job seekers need to eliminate as many negatives as possible." One untenured blogger from the Volokh Conspiracy defends his decision to blog anonymously by noting, "I've often heard academics disparage non-academic writing in terms that suggest it could be a negative in the tenure process, irrespective of the quality of academic work under review."
What is important to note here is that blogging is pure speech. It is nothing more than the act of participating in the marketplace of ideas. Fear of this new medium betrays a dislike of the actual process of speaking. What if the speaker says something we disagree with? What if we believe the speech to be harmful or indicative of some odious personal traits?
The fact is that anyone who seeks to enter the public debate is wise to do so anonymously or not at all. The world is full of unpleasant truths, and many of these truths are profoundly and utterly offensive. Anyone seeking to advance such truths opens himself to personal assassination and retaliation -- the sort of "high-tech lynching" referred to by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And America is full of dogmas which no one wishes challenged.
As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, "In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers, an author may write what he pleases: but woe to him if he goes beyond them," noting the type of persecution visited on those who express unpopular opinions. Society does not encourage speech and uncomfortable truths; it silences them.
As much as we may celebrate rebellion in the abstract sense, we rarely value the rebels among us. The message is: Watch what you say, and make sure it pleases the powerful. Otherwise, you are well-advised to stay quiet, and the promise of American life remains an illusion.
Noah Peters' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
