Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, Europe was plagued by continual religious wars. But Europeans learned a valuable lesson from the years of turmoil: tolerance. The only way to coexist without violence is to accept religious differences and allow standing rules to trump private judgments. Sadly, the University is forgetting these foundations of Western democracy.
In a melodramatic e-mail last semester, resident advisor Chelsea Conanan described how two of her residents perpetrated "racial harassment" against her by calling her the n-word. Two weeks ago the University Judiciary Committee charged one of the students. After a referendum last year, UJC may mete out "a more serious sanction" for violations motivated by race. I fully expect UJC will use this case to showcase these powers.
But is this actually warranted? Two students may have harassed an RA with racial epithets, but these were only words. The Constitution forbids laws "abridging the freedom of speech" precisely because it is so temping to restrict offensive speech. Racism is deplorable but to use fighting it as a pretense to stifle freedom of speech is truly intolerant.
The greatest and most impassioned defense of freedom of speech in Western thought is John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty." He reminds us, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." In her e-mail, Conanan claims the incident as proof that "slavery still exists." But a pair of racist students expressing their views is a far cry from shackles and coercion. Allowing students to express repugnant views is the very antithesis of slavery, not proof of it. Furthermore, while the students' racism may be hateful, it never brought anyone physical harm. Yet Conanan and UJC have decided that they know best about what is okay to think or say.
The fundamental question, then, in the "struggle between authority and liberty" is how we can be tolerant and still respect the rights of the intolerant. Again, Mill has answers. He posits two reasons for permitting people to express false opinions. First is the classic "marketplace of ideas:" The more free and open the exchange of ideas is, the more likely individuals are to abandon flawed beliefs. Second, public debate forces opponents to evaluate and examine their own beliefs. Therefore, by permitting students to express racist comments we allow the University community to publicly reaffirm its commitment to tolerance and diversity.
The case in point is the University community's reaction to a similar racial incident last year. Rather than try to find and punish the racists for expressing themselves, students donned black t-shirts to a televised football game and began wearing black ribbons. With unfettered competition in the marketplace of ideas, social norms of tolerance triumphed. It became evident to anyone who walked on Grounds that University students did not simply pay lip service to their ideas but were actively fighting racism. Only by allowing racist remarks could the University community publicly embrace tolerance and truly combat racism.
Any restriction on the freedom of speech makes the eradication of racism even less likely; the racists are reduced to mere dogma instead of being forced to publicly reevaluate their views. But, not surprisingly, the usual suspects have jumped on the bandwagon to restrict students' liberties. Patrick Martinez, chair of the Minority Rights Coalition, has widely publicized Conanan's statements and, when asked if racists have a right to express their views, wrote in an e-mail, "I really don't understand how people can seriously defend this
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
