By Mark Hemingway
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Note: This is the
text of the Eugene C. Pulliam lecture Hemingway delivered at Hillsdale College
on March 17, 2016.
I’m a political journalist, and one way of describing at
what I do is that I spend my days arguing with people. When you put it that
way, the job doesn’t sound particularly enjoyable or pleasant, and I confess
that it’s often not. However, the debates roiling America at the moment — from
the assaults on religious liberty to the size of America’s ever-growing
administrative state — are increasingly vital. To quote Calvin Coolidge, it is
important that we be “lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.”
But as controversial and even nasty as our debates have
become, the most dispiriting thing about the American politics is that I
increasingly spend much of my time not debating the merits of particular
candidates and policies, but having to reaffirm the necessity of having the
debates in the first place.
As for needing a reminder about the threats to free
speech, you do not need to take my word for it. Last year, playwright and
Oscar-winning screenwriter Tom Stoppard observed the threats to free speech are
perilous. “I think it’s quite a frightening time,” he said accepting a
PEN/Allen Foundation Literary Service Award.
Stoppard fled Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia as a child and
spent much of his career traveling and speaking out on behalf of artists and
dissidents in the Soviet Union and communist Eastern Europe, so his concerns
ought to carry considerable weight.
In particular, Stoppard was concerned about last year’s
attack on the French satirical publication Charlie
Hebdo, where Muslim terrorists stormed the newspaper’s offices and killed
12 people in response to the paper’s blasphemous cartoons.
Stoppard went on to say, “The Charlie Hebdo massacre was an appalling body shock to anybody who
cares about life, let alone literature. You are left thinking, ‘Well, if it
comes to making a choice here, clearly one has to choose that one should be
allowed and entitled to offend without being murdered for it.’ That seems
self-evident. That doesn’t mean that one is in harmony with the attitude or the
particular instances of what is being said and written and drawn.”
Undoing the
Cultural Consensus on Free Speech
Stoppard is right. But this point is self-evident only if
you are familiar with the West’s heritage of classical liberalism, and there is
currently a great effort underway to unmake this cultural consensus on free
speech. Case in point: The PEN literary organization, which was honoring
Stoppard for his “defense of creative freedom worldwide” last year, soon found
itself embroiled in an open revolt with its own membership, who were upset that
the organization also wanted to give a free speech award to Charlie Hebdo.
Indeed, a number of other prominent voices used the
attack on Charlie Hebdo as an
opportunity not to speak out about violence or intolerance but, instead, to
criticize Charlie Hebdo.
Barely a week before Stoppard made these remarks,
Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau, was given a Career Achievement Award at the
allegedly prestigious George Polk Journalism Awards. For you younger folks,
Gary Trudeau rose to fame as a political cartoonist in the 1970s lampooning
Richard Nixon at a time when every elite cultural institution in America was
already assailing the corrupt president.
Naturally, Trudeau used the occasion of his career
journalism award to chastise his murdered colleagues at Charlie Hebdo for drawing cartoons he called “hate speech.” He went
on to say that by daring to satirize Muslims’ religious beliefs, Charlie Hebdo was “punching downward, by
attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority.” But when you have the means
and will to carry out mass executions of people you don’t agree with, you’re
anything but powerless. There’s nice literary irony to Trudeau accusing Charlie Hebdo of metaphorically
“punching down” when they were literally shot and killed in response.
After I criticized Trudeau’s remarks in print, my editors
at The Weekly Standard received a
letter from no less than John Darnton, the curator of the George Polk
journalism awards. The letter attacked me personally as a “bent-for-hell
headline grabber” and said I was “grievously misrepresenting” Trudeau’s
argument.
Darnton went on to explain that Trudeau wasn’t failing to
defend free speech, but was merely accusing Charlie
Hebdo of having “fed the flames of violence and caused Muslims throughout
France to rally around the extremists.” I can only thank Darnton for writing
this letter, which both clearly and obliviously reinforces everything I said in
the first place. The notion that it is hateful to satirize people who hold
undemocratic beliefs—up to and including the belief it’s justified to massacre
the staff of a newspaper you think is guilty of blasphemy—just because the
people those people are labeled “a powerless, disenfranchised minority” is
dangerous nonsense.
Why We Need
Blasphemy
Indeed, Charlie
Hebdo routinely drew blasphemous and obscene cartoons making fun of Jesus
and the pope. Yet, there was never a serious worry that bunch of Christians
would storm their newsroom and shoot them all. The suggestion that “Muslims
throughout France” should be expected to rally around extremists who want to
kill anyone who draws a cartoon mocking their faith is patronizing at best,
racist at worst.
It is nearly impossible to understate how ignorant and
shortsighted the view that modern notions of racial and class privilege should
outweigh the need to draw a bright line protecting freedom of expression, much
less serve as an excuse for violence.
Perhaps in an ideal world we’d all refrain from going out
of our way to offend, but as columnist Ross Douthat has argued, even the right
to blaspheme is crucial to defend. According to Douthat, “If a large enough
group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s
something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent
have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it
isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.”
But among his peers, Douthat is a thinker of unusual
clarity. I’m afraid that while journalists are fond of uttering self-soothing
words about their commitment to free speech, the unwillingness to defend the
values that enable their profession is becoming characteristic instead of
exceptional.
Civilization’s
Vanguard Hides Like Sissy Girls
My ongoing run-ins with the journalistic establishment
over free speech are proof enough of that. After the Hebdo massacre, many news outlets noted that one of the
much-beloved, now-murdered Charlie Hebdo
cartoonists, Stéphane Charbonnier, was put on a hit list in the pages of the
grimly named al-Qaeda magazine Inspire.
Also listed at the bottom of the same page, under the headline “Wanted Dead or
Alive for Crimes Against Islam” was Molly Norris. I don’t expect you to know
who that is; only that the fact you don’t know the name Molly Norris represents
a major collective failing.
On September 14, 2010, Seattle Weekly announced that its cartoonist Molly Norris had gone
into hiding with the help of the FBI. Earlier that year, Norris had gained some
prominence as the founder of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day. Norris hoped this event
would become a rallying cry to defend cartoonists. This prompted none other
than prominent al-Qaeda and Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki to issue a
fatwa calling for Norris’ murder.
At the time Norris went into hiding, I was working at the
Washington Examiner, where we
published an editorial condemning various media organizations for failing to
speak out in her defense, including the Society for Professional Journalists
and American Society of News Editors. In fact, I was the one tasked with writing
the editorial as well as personally calling the Society for Professional
Journalists and American Society of News Editors to find out what they had said
in defense of Norris, which as it turns out, was nothing.
As I wrote at the time, “freedom of speech and press are
in deep trouble when the American government thinks the best it can do to
protect a journalist from death threats is to counsel her to go into hiding,
and when the elite voices of American journalism can’t be bothered to say
anything in her defense.”
The Society for Professional Journalists responded to
this criticism by privately emailing reporters across the country and saying
the Examiner editorial was
“misleading and was most likely written to gain headlines.” Now, where have I
heard that before? That particular attack on our journalistic integrity was
even more laughable when the transcript of my phone call to the Society of
Professional Journalists was eventually published in response.
How About
Rebuffing Instead of Enabling the Aggressors
Yet the most damnable aspect of the whole episode isn’t
just that most journalists chose to ignore what happened to Norris, it’s that
they are instead willfully deluded about the true threats to free speech. Four
days after Norris went into hiding, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof
lamented the “venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists … Muslims
are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible
to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.” I’d suggest Kristof ask
Norris if it’s possible to demean Muslims openly, but I’m pretty sure she’s
unavailable for comment.
Even before the Charlie
Hebdo massacre, Kristof’s Muslim apologia was pretty rich coming in the
pages of a newspaper that had refused to print the controversial Danish
Mohammed cartoons when they were the biggest news story on the planet in 2006.
The New York Times
justification for this at the time was that “This seems a reasonable choice for
news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious
symbols.” After the Hebdo massacre
last year, the Times once again
doubled down on the pretense it refrains from “gratuitous assaults” on
religious believers.
“Under Times
standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately
intended to offend religious sensibilities,” said the paper in a statement it
gave to Buzzfeed. “After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the [Charlie Hebdo] cartoons in question would give readers sufficient
information to understand today’s story.”
Not five months after their statement on why they would
not publish the Charlie Hebdo
cartoons, the Times ran a story on Chris
Ofili’s painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary.” According to the Times, the painting “caused a furor when it was shown at the
Brooklyn Museum in October 1999… The eight-foot-high depiction of a black
Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms from
pornographic magazines, outraged religious leaders.”
The story was illustrated with, yes, a picture of the
offensive painting. Again we see the Times
regularly publishes stuff offensive to believers, provided they’re confident
those believers won’t shoot up their newsroom.
At Least Don’t Lie
About Being Afraid
Saying the New York
Times should be brave enough to publish things that may invite violence
upon itself is a lot to ask for. What’s not a lot to ask for is for the paper
to dispense with their transparently disingenuous rationalizations about why
they don’t do this.
After the Charlie
Hebdo attack, the Jyllands-Posten,
the Danish newspaper that originally published the controversial Mohammed
cartoons that sparked violence and worldwide protests a decade ago, refused to
publish any of Hebdo’s controversial
cartoons. The Jyllands-Posten editor,
Flemming Rose, subsequently wrote a book, “The Tyranny of Silence,” about the
paper’s ordeal. It is an admirable cri de
coeur about the need for free speech. But when Rose was asked about the
refusal to publish the Hebdo cartoons
he told the BBC, “We caved in. Violence works… Sometimes the sword is mightier
than the pen.”
At first blanch, Rose’s explicit cowardice may be hard to
digest; but compared to the New York
Times— it’s positively heroic. In response to Rose’s comments, British
columnist Nick Cohen observed, “If you are frightened, at least have the guts
to say that. The most effective form of censorship is one that nobody admits
exists.”
It is both sad and undeniable that much of the Western
media, along with most other guardians of the public trust, are eager to
self-censor and are in complete denial about it. The only question before us
now is what to do about it.
The Blame for
Higher Education
We certainly didn’t arrive overnight at this place where
our great institutions were unwilling to uphold the First Amendment. This
cowardice and hostility to free speech is the result of being learned, taught,
and absorbed over generations. You can all congratulate yourselves for choosing
to attend Hillsdale. But the reality is that higher education might bear more
responsibility for this tragic state of affairs than any other institution.
To give you just one example of and how thoroughly baked
into the American cake a wrongly critical view of the First Amendment has
become, when issues of controversial speech arise in the news, almost
inevitably you will hear some educated person quote Oliver Wendell Holmes’s
admonition that you can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.
No one bothers to mention that Holmes’s quote comes from
a ruling where the Supreme Court decided that merely distributing flyers in
opposition to the draft in World War I violated the 1917 Espionage Act. Indeed,
a great many Americans did hard time because good Wilsonian progressives
decided opposing the government in public was a crime. In case you’re
wondering, this is the same 1917 Espionage Act President Obama invoked in 2015
to justify the Department of Justice snooping on the Associated Press newsroom
and Fox News national security reporter James Rosen.
I don’t think it’s an accident that Woodrow Wilson, the
man largely responsible for probably the greatest abridgment of free speech in
American history, the legacy of which still haunts us, was otherwise notable
for being the president of Princeton University. Further, Wilson’s pioneering
academic work in Hegelian progressivism, which represents a complete denial of
obvious truths about human nature, is still the dominant intellectual force
governing the academy and many other American institutions.
Free Speech No
Longer Means Free Speech
How’s the progressive legacy working out for higher
education? Most of you are familiar with the goat rodeo at the University of
Missouri last year, where a professor physically threatened a student
journalist and the inmates running Mizzou’s asylum managed to get the
university president fired.
But it’s worth looking at few more of the many recent
examples of higher education gone wrong. Imagine you went back to a more
innocent time—say, 10 years ago, when campuses were only largely, rather than
completely, insane—and posited any number of recent developments as satire.
People would regard these tales as unbelievable and incredibly overwrought.
Two years ago, the University of California Berkeley was
celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Berkeley free speech movement,
often credited with kicking off the modern era of campus activism.
Romanticizing the Berkeley free speech movement too much is a mistake, but by
the standards of contemporary campus activism even the use of the term “free
speech” is laudable. However, I have my doubts that twenty-first-century
Berkeley agrees.
To mark the anniversary, U.C. Berkeley Chancellor
Nicholas Dirks sent out a memo that read, “As we honor this turning point in
our history, it is important that we recognize the broader social context
required in order for free speech to thrive.” You can probably tell where this
is heading. Dirks went on to say, “Specifically, we can only exercise our right
to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so.”
You Can’t Talk
Because I Don’t Like It
It is emphatically not true that the right to free speech
depends on whether you are in a “safe space,” a concept college kids like to
talk about but doesn’t really exist. Rather, the entire notion of America
stands or falls on the assertion that our absolute right to free speech
predates and stands apart from any authority that threatens it.
History is full of heroes and martyrs who can testify to
that. Were he alive, Patrick Henry would no doubt inform Chancellor Dirks that
“Give me liberty insofar as we feel safe and respected asking for it!” doesn’t
quite have the same ring to it.
Last year, Yale faculty member Erika Christakis sent an
email in response to Yale University’s Intercultural Affairs Committee’s plea
that students avoid wearing offensive Halloween costumes. Students reacted so
poorly to her email that a few weeks later she announced she would suspend
teaching courses at Yale.
Christakis asked what she mistakenly thought was a
rhetorical question: “Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity—in your
capacity—to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your
capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?”
Also last year, contrarian students at Amherst University
posted flyers objecting to the message of campus protests sweeping the nation.
These said “in memoriam… free speech.” A left-wing student group fired off an
angry letter to the administration in response to the students concerned about
preserving free speech.
Probably
Universities Are a Lost Cause
Among their angry demands were that the students who
posted the flyers expressing concern about free speech “go through the
Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed, and that they will be
required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”
Indeed, “extensive training for racial and cultural
competency” is rapidly becoming the singular, if disturbing, definition of
education these days. In any event, Woodrow Wilson would be proud that his
enduring academic influence means that people still regard posting flyers as a
crime.
Speaking of Woodrow Wilson, students at Princeton
University caught up in the recent spate of campus protests have been demanding
that Wilson’s name be removed from campus. This is in response to Wilson’s
unvarnished racism and in spite of the fact he’s the school’s most famous
alumnus… Okay, fine. I have to confess I find this incident far more amusing
than troubling.
However, such absurdities suggest the campus intellectual
environment is possibly beyond redemption. It would be a fool’s errand to beg
professors and administrators to stop propagating the corrosive ideas they’ve
been spewing for decades. I think the solution to preserving free speech
requires taking different tack.
What Death Can Teach
Us about Free Speech
So I propose appealing to America’s students directly,
and asking them to do the one thing that young adults never do, and that is
this: Please consider your own mortality.
It feels great to be young, and I hope the students here
today are self-aware enough to enjoy it. But I know one fact about everyone in
this room for certain, and it is that some day we’re all going to die. I don’t
point out our finite existence out to be depressing. As a Christian, I would
tell you death is not the end. But also I tell you this simply because it’s the
truth.
The ultimate point of upholding the right to free speech
is that encouraging the robust competition of ideas is the best way that we
know of to reaffirm and accumulate truth. That accumulation of truth happens
over time. And over time, we all die.
Interestingly enough, it is John Stuart Mill, whose ideas
about utilitarianism have done much to undermine natural rights, who has most
eloquently articulated the generational case for free speech:
[The] peculiar evil of silencing
the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity
as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still
more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost
as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by its collision with error.
Now if silencing expression results in robbing future
generations of the truth, then what does this say about current student
attitudes? The evidence so far is pretty disheartening. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported:
The William F. Buckley Jr. Program
at Yale recently commissioned a survey from McLaughlin & Associates about
attitudes towards free speech on campus. Some 800 students at a variety of
colleges across the country were surveyed.
The results, though not surprising,
are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students
favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and
faculty.
Sixty-three percent favor requiring
professors to employ ‘trigger warnings’ to alert students to material that
might be discomfiting.
One-third of the students polled
could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that
dealt with free speech.
Thirty-five percent said that the
First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech,’ while 30 percent of
self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.
This suggests that today’s students are retreating from
the realm of debate, leaving public opinion to be dominated by the tyranny of
deranged minority viewpoints. Further, if we think about free speech in terms
of posterity, these trends suggest that it will be as if a huge swath of the up
and coming generation never existed. If there’s a blank page in the annals of
history where your name and achievements in service of others could have been
written, what’s the point?
So ask yourself, what’s the worst that could happen if
you speak out? Well, yes, you could die. But once you come to terms with the
fact that’s going to happen anyway, it’s tremendously clarifying.
Spend Your Life
Exchanging Error for Truth
Tajar Djaout, an Algerian poet and novelist, put it this
way: “Silence is death. If you speak, you die. If you are silent, you die. So
speak, and die.” Djaout did not say this lightly; he was killed in 1993 by
Muslim extremists.
I don’t expect all of you be that heroic, and for those
of you who aspire to be, I would caution you not to succumb to the fallacy that
the worth of speech is judged by the size of the reaction it engenders.
But this is precisely why your education is so important
and you should take it seriously. Adulthood is consumed by difficult judgments
and the struggle to balance competing interests. College students are largely
free of these responsibilities, because society has decided that now is the
time in your development when you should learn to discern and express which
ideas are the most true.
It is even hoped that you will learn to do this by also
using the words that are the most appropriate and beautiful. Eventually, the
best among you will serve as leaders and inspiring figures for the rest of us
when challenges inevitably arise. If the last century is anything to go by,
millions of lives will depend on the ability to speak the truth when others are
incapable. But even a quiet life spent diligently exchanging error for truth
goes a long way toward preserving freedom for future generations, and that is
no small accomplishment.
So I reiterate that you are incredibly fortunate to
attend a university that, from what I have witnessed, stands firmly in opposition
to all of the forces conspiring to destroy our heritage of freedom. I hope all
of you blessed to attend and contribute to this unique school can both serve as
an example and reach out to the many other young Americans who not only aren’t
being told the truth, but are being threatened the moment they stumble across
it.
I hope you spend your time at Hillsdale honing your
God-given abilities so that you are up to the enormity of the task being thrust
upon future generations. But most of
all, I hope that when you leave this room tonight, and when eventually you
leave this campus for the wider world, you do so with a renewed sense of
purpose regarding the two things that all us were born to do: Speak and die.
No comments:
Post a Comment