Almost 100 years ago, the great SCOTUS Justice Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). He concurred that the law required the outcome in that case, but he wrote, essentially, to oppose the thinking of nearly all SCOTUS justices, and likely the thinking of most Americans. Justice Brandeis's concurrence towered over the opinion of the majority, and it has been invoked by many justices, even to this day. He wrote to remind Americans of the reason earlier Americans wrote the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then suffered and sacrificed much to give those words vitality:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government."
But Justice Brandeis did not stop there. He went on to respond to those who object that exuberant speech and assembly of some threaten to disturb the peace of others. He accentuated that permitting people to disturb the peace a little in support of a serious cause is essential to the greater safety and security of all:
"They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
The freedom of speech was secured by We the People in our Constitution to prevent the repression that breeds hate, which menaces stability and safety. Safety and security lie in affording people "the opportunity to discuss" to release the pressure that otherwise will build based on "supposed grievances and proposed remedies."
Two thoughts from Voltaire might be relevant: "Beware of the words 'internal security,' for they are the eternal cry of the oppressor." And "[i]f you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize."
Yes. We need these students to find solutions to technological and cultural problems. Instead they are making society more divided and reactionary. Universities should be ashamed of themselves.
If you attend university your primary sense of identity should not be as an activist, a trans, a Jew or anything else. It should be as a student which, in turn, means as a truth-seeker. That journey is never complete and your duty is to retain an open mind forever. The certainty demonstrated by activist students is a sign that they are not learning.
"DEI, Inc. has helped to erase meaningful distinctions between physical safety and psychological discomfort." Yes, true. But Jewish students have been physically attacked and Harvard's (or Claudine Gay's) response was entirely inadequate. There is a difference between protesting Israeli's policies or tactics and calling for the genocide of Jews or the wholesale destruction of Israel. That's hate speech, and typically leads to violence.
I do wonder what these administrators would have made of my Jewish poli sci professor forty years ago, who assigned us to read KKK newsletters on reserve in the library. Actually, I don't wonder. Too few administrators are themselves educated and thoughtful people in the corporate hellscape that's now every university.
Almost 100 years ago, the great SCOTUS Justice Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). He concurred that the law required the outcome in that case, but he wrote, essentially, to oppose the thinking of nearly all SCOTUS justices, and likely the thinking of most Americans. Justice Brandeis's concurrence towered over the opinion of the majority, and it has been invoked by many justices, even to this day. He wrote to remind Americans of the reason earlier Americans wrote the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then suffered and sacrificed much to give those words vitality:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government."
But Justice Brandeis did not stop there. He went on to respond to those who object that exuberant speech and assembly of some threaten to disturb the peace of others. He accentuated that permitting people to disturb the peace a little in support of a serious cause is essential to the greater safety and security of all:
"They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
The freedom of speech was secured by We the People in our Constitution to prevent the repression that breeds hate, which menaces stability and safety. Safety and security lie in affording people "the opportunity to discuss" to release the pressure that otherwise will build based on "supposed grievances and proposed remedies."
Two thoughts from Voltaire might be relevant: "Beware of the words 'internal security,' for they are the eternal cry of the oppressor." And "[i]f you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize."
Yes. We need these students to find solutions to technological and cultural problems. Instead they are making society more divided and reactionary. Universities should be ashamed of themselves.
If you attend university your primary sense of identity should not be as an activist, a trans, a Jew or anything else. It should be as a student which, in turn, means as a truth-seeker. That journey is never complete and your duty is to retain an open mind forever. The certainty demonstrated by activist students is a sign that they are not learning.
"DEI, Inc. has helped to erase meaningful distinctions between physical safety and psychological discomfort." Yes, true. But Jewish students have been physically attacked and Harvard's (or Claudine Gay's) response was entirely inadequate. There is a difference between protesting Israeli's policies or tactics and calling for the genocide of Jews or the wholesale destruction of Israel. That's hate speech, and typically leads to violence.
I do wonder what these administrators would have made of my Jewish poli sci professor forty years ago, who assigned us to read KKK newsletters on reserve in the library. Actually, I don't wonder. Too few administrators are themselves educated and thoughtful people in the corporate hellscape that's now every university.