In a reprise of events from last fall, the University community again received a visit from a very vocal traveling evangelist last week. The gentleman quickly became notorious for speaking condemnation on many features of the lifestyle of students, singling out women for dressing inappropriately, men for being “whoremongers” and “fornicators,” and the student body in general for vices ranging from listening to “gangster rap” to abuse of alcohol and drugs. I sat in the amphitheater for quite some time listening to the interactions between students and the speaker, and the aspect of the speech to which students seemed to react most viscerally was the idea that they were being judged according to an extremely legalistic point of view — being held to unrealistic standards by someone with no authority to judge them. Such an attitude ought to make us reflect with gratitude on the wide varieties of freedom we possess.
The most obvious freedom illustrated by the presence of the gentleman on grounds is the freedom of speech. A two-way street, it allows evangelists to proclaim his message to anyone who will listen, whether it be the truth he considers it or “religious harassment” as a letter to the editor in The Cavalier Daily labeled it (“Free from religion,” 3/23/2009). By the same token, individual students or student groups can proclaim their own agendas, regardless of what others may think. Many of the messages proclaimed by student groups would be just as offensive to the speaker as his intolerance was to them. The nature of free, opinionated speech necessitates that sometimes people’s toes will get stepped on. Some might argue that traveling evangelists ought not be allowed on Grounds at all, but giving anyone power to determine what messages can and cannot be proclaimed is a slippery slope, and upon which it is better not to embark. It would be cliché to quote Voltaire right now, but it will suffice to say that if we are willing to sacrifice the right of others to proclaim their message, then we must render up our own right to freely proclaim our agenda alongside them.
Another freedom students should be thankful for is the freedom to react as they please to messages presented to them. If they so choose, they can utterly disregard messages with which they do not agree. If, for example, the speaker’s message on how women ought to dress felt oppressive, or if his condemnation of rap rang false, then students have the freedom to disagree with or ignore his words and to continue on with their lives without fear of legal repercussions. This is not the case in many countries. A brief scan of news articles for one day provides evidence to support this. As I write this, I can find articles about a blogger who died in jail in Iran after insulting the religious establishment (imagine if this were the penalty regarding our traveling evangelist — how many students would be incarcerated right now?). Another story discusses clerics in Saudi Arabia pushing for laws preventing women from appearing on television or in magazines, as well as a ban of music and music shows on television. Yet another describes how in Iran only recently were insurance companies required to pay the same amount in compensation to women as they would to men in case of death or injury. South Africa has denied the Dalai Lama a visa he sought in order to attend a peace conference for fear of distractions and controversy. Other reports indicate attacks on journalistic freedom in many countries in South Asia, Malaysia, and North Korea. All of these infringements on different forms of the freedom of speech by civil authorities were headlines from just two news Web sites. The prevalence of such assaults on individual thought demonstrates how lucky we are to have our liberty, as the right to formulate and express one’s opinions is a valuable commodity, and one not respected in many countries.
Such statements and policies appear laughable in the United States simply because we are accustomed to subscribing to the idea that people of all ilks have the right to express their opinions. Looking at the example provided by the traveling evangelist, even if the speaker’s words were oppressive in spirit, they have no binding power over students. The beauty of the freedom of speech is that even unpopular viewpoints can be expressed without fear of penalties. The unimpeded presence of unpopular viewpoints demonstrates how grateful we ought to be for our freedoms.
Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 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.
