Free speech means freedom to disagree

An unfathomable number of “free-thinking” liberal universities keep free speech on campus under lock and key. Most recently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “free speech” policies were exposed. Turns out that MIT’s faculty are self-censoring. Not as in, refraining from blurting out every thought — self-censoring as in actually restricting controversial speech.

This should be disturbing to the average American because MIT is a cutting-edge research institution where it’s presumed that broad exploration and unfettered discussion of scientific possibilities help make our country and the world better off.

Sadly, the infection of MIT’s speech policy is not isolated; it represents a contagion. A Fifth Circuit judge went so far as to put a moratorium on hiring Yale Law School graduates because they willingly chose to attend an institution that utilizes the heckler’s veto to push out unwanted speakers. Top-tier schools have developed well-deserved reputations for censorship.

Multiply these by many other examples occurring across academia, workplaces, and even the halls of Congress, and there’s a picture of an attempt to create a one-sided view of the world by strangling free speech. Accusing opponents of engaging in ill-defined hate speech, providing “safe spaces” from controversial ideas, and promoting bills that force us to violate our conscience are far more sinister than we once realized.

That’s because conflict is a prerequisite to success. The feats of mankind are awe-inspiring — each one is proof we were made to be extraordinary and use hardship as a catalyst to reach great heights. The first man to ever successfully summit Mt. Everest said, “Challenge is what makes men. It will be the end when men stop looking for new challenges.”  

This timeless principle of iron sharpening iron also applies to ideas. A society needs to hear, understand, and grapple with opposing viewpoints and spar with discomfort. In the words of Frederick Douglass, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”  

If some speech is condemned based on subjective notions of hatefulness, advocacy has no place in our society — how can one defend a position with no opposition? This would create a lackluster and monochromatic world. Suppression creates uniform thought.  

Individuals of all political stripes ought to recognize the disservice in shielding oneself from our brethren on the other side. Even one of former President Barack Obama’s former advisers had words for the modern-day college student: “You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless but obnoxious and dangerous. I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset and then to learn how to speak back.”

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2023/03/01/schiraldi-free-speech-means-freedom-to-disagree/69954102007/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************