<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="header"><div class="container topstuff"><div class="nglogo-front"><p class="">I’ve admired Jim Dey’s investigative reporting - particularly on
legal matters - for some time, but I often disagree with his political
opinions.</p><p class=""> I think he’s quite right, though, in his column in today’s News-Gazette - especially his asseveration “that so-called ‘hate speech’ is
constitutionally protected.”</p><p class=""> Noam Chomsky (with whom Mr. Dey
would perhaps not often agree) pointed out long ago, “If you don’t
believe in free speech for people you despise, you don’t believe in it
at all.” </p><div class="text_exposed_show"><p class=""> I think that’s correct, and I appreciate Dey’s speaking up for it. </p><p class=""> His greatest sin in that piece is the solecism, “...these kind of events...” Surely he means “...this kind of event...”</p></div></div><div class="nglogo-front">—CGE</div><div class="nglogo-front"><br class=""></div><div class="nglogo-front">==========================</div><div class="nglogo-front"> <a href="http://www.news-gazette.com/" class=""><img src="http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/themes/custom/ng_fbg/images/news-gazette-full.png" width="260px" class=""></a> </div>
<div class="toplinks"></div></div><div class="navstripe"><div class="container"><p class="datebox ngdatebox">Sunday, October 15, 2017 </p><p class="datebox ngdatebox"></p></div></div></div><div class="container"><section id="section-content" class="section section-content col-md-12"><div id="page" class=""><div id="main" class=""><div id="content" class="col-md-8"><h1 class="title" id="page-title">Jim Dey: Free speech: It's not a hard concept</h1>
<div id="content-content" class="clear-block">
<div class="col-md-12">
<div id="node-1570474" class="node">
<form id="bookmark" class="">
</form>
<div class="p402_premium"><div class="content"><p class="">A camel is a horse designed by a committee.</p><p class="">Bear that old aphorism in mind when members of a proposed campus task
force charged with developing policies on maintaining free speech and a
welcoming campus environment for all finally get around to turning in
their report.</p><p class="">The way things are going in connection with this issue on campus it
should be considered a plus if the free-speech horse the committee
configures only resembles a camel, not something even more
unrecognizable. But even that hope is a stretch given the hand-wringing
nervousness displayed by campus higher-ups on an issue that is just not
that complicated.</p><p class="">The reality surrounding free speech can be, and sometimes is, contentious. But the issue itself is relatively simple.</p><p class="">Let everyone speak. Let people decide on their own whether to listen
or not to listen. Provide security, if necessary, to ensure the rules of
decorum are followed. Impose disciplinary measures against those who
would try to silence a speaker or take over a meeting where a lecture is
being presented.</p><p class="">That seems to be pretty much what happened at a recent event, where
audience members inside the Illini Union listened to a guest speaker
while protesters outside denounced the speaker as, according to one
sign, "a fascist alt-right sympathizer who looks like a mashed potato."</p><p class="">Some on campus seemed to be scandalized this particular speaker was a
conservative who spoke enthusiastically about free-market capitalism as
the best method of building wealth and reducing poverty.</p><p class="">Most people would find that type of event wholly ordinary on campus.
At the same time, most people would be similarly undisturbed if a
liberal gave a talk on why single-payer is the best approach on health
care, a socialist asserted government should take over private
enterprise or a libertarian advocated the legalization of illegal drugs.</p><p class="">These speakers advocate points of view, and people make of them what
they will. No nannies are needed to ensure that dissenters' feelings not
be hurt by being exposed to an opinion they do not share.</p><p class="">But that common-sense viewpoint seems alien to members of the campus
community, which explains why University of Illinois President Timothy
Killeen has decided to appoint a task force made up of faculty,
administrators and students to develop permanent policies addressing
speech issues.</p><p class="">(By the way, will there be any requirement that members of this group
actually understand what the free speech clause in the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution actually means? There should be because it
appears that only a few people outside the law school faculty actually
understand that so-called "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.)</p><p class="">Killeen has been wasting his and a lot of people's time for weeks now on this issue. Maybe there's a method to his madness.</p><p class="">But this task force likely appears to represent another exercise in
somehow trying to appease faculty members, like Bruce Rosenstock, as
well as campus groups that resent the possibility that the UI might host
a speaker of whom they do not approve.</p><p class="">UI officials characterize these kind of events as "challenging conversations" and say they want to avoid "divisive things."</p><p class="">Given what's transpired on other campuses, that concern is easy to
understand. But the division on campus is being sown by those who seek
to limit speech on topics, even innocuous ones, they do not wish to be
addressed.</p><p class="">Here are some examples:</p><p class="">— On Oct. 6, a group of thuggish students took over a platform at the
University of Oregon and refused to allow President Michael Schill
deliver his annual "State of the University" speech.</p><p class="">— On Oct. 9, a member of the Texas Legislature was shouted down
before he could deliver a talk about the Texas Southern University Law
School.</p><p class="">— On Oct. 11, a speech by noted author Charles Murray at the
University of Michigan was severely disrupted. News reports indicate
"Murray was able to speak only for brief periods in between disruptions
lasting 40 minutes."</p><div class="insertAdLeft"><div id="div-gpt-ad-1470256759724-0" style="height: 250px; width: 300px;" data-google-query-id="CJqj9f-r89YCFYpLAQodDecCNQ" class=""><div id="google_ads_iframe_/4073248/NG_Article_Inline_300x250_0__container__" style="border: 0pt none;" class="">Here's the answer to the problem those events created — universities
shouldn't put up with that kind of behavior. That kind of mindless
authoritarianism is not only an affront to good manners but an assault
on civil society.</div><div id="google_ads_iframe_/4073248/NG_Article_Inline_300x250_0__container__" style="border: 0pt none;" class=""><br class=""></div><div id="google_ads_iframe_/4073248/NG_Article_Inline_300x250_0__container__" style="border: 0pt none;" class="">There always will be those who wish to distinguish, based on their
personal opinion, between good speech that should be heard and bad
speech they believe should not be heard. The question, of course, is who
decides.</div></div></div><p class=""><br class=""></p><p class="">The answer is to let the speakers compete in the marketplace of
ideas, letting audience members decide for themselves whether their
remarks make sense or not.</p><p class="">In a cliche-ridden resolution he considered offering to the UI
Faculty Senate, Professor Rosenstock called for "ways to balance freedom
of speech and academic freedom" with "the goal of creating a welcoming
climate and safe environment for all university members who want their
voices to be heard and respected in our common struggle against the
alarming growth of open displays of intolerance and bigotry on college
campuses today."</p><p class="">Rosenstock — and others like him — don't mean his speech rights
should be balanced against anything because he considers himself on the
side of the angels. But it's a different story altogether for those who,
in his view, are not similarly situated.</p><p class="">If the UI wants to adopt a policy on speech issues that sets the
proper standard, it can look to the positions taken at Purdue, the
University of Chicago or other institutions who have indicated that
their campuses will remain forums for the free exchange of ideas.</p><p class="">If that's not good enough,let President Killeen say that theFirst Amendment sets the proper standing.</p><p class="">By bobbing and weaving and hemming and hawing, President Killeen,
Chancellor Robert Jones and acting Provost John Wilkins only demean
themselves, their positions and this great university with their
continuing profiles in vacillation and cowardice.</p><p class=""><em class="">Jim Dey, a member of The News-Gazette staff, can be reached by email at <a href="mailto:jdey@news-gazette.com" class="">jdey@news-gazette.com</a> or by phone at 217-351-5369.</em></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></section></div></body></html>