"Students piled into the lecture hall, turned their backs to Murray and chanted: 'Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away!' and 'Your message is hatred. We cannot tolerate it.'"
Lately, it has become a common occurrence to block speeches that may seem controversial. As more and more of these protests proclaim the defense for minority rights and liberal philosophy, it becomes necessary for liberals to think hard about these trends. I do not agree with many of the stances of Murray. Or of Milo or any of the "alt-right" speakers which have been blocked from speaking. But I still would like to hear their speech. To see their ideas laid out on the table. I would like to see these ideas attacked in debate, and not the medium of these ideas, the speakers, attacked instead.
To those who are predisposed to vehemently speak out to bar speaking, I ask a question: If your ideas are the best ideas, then what is there to be afraid of? I want to see ideas to be thrown into the arena of competing gladiators and the strongest idea emerge. But if we throw the Rules of Debate into the arena, in a bid to have our idea win, does it really? Is winning by default the one that fills you with pride to be on the right side of the debate, on the ride side of history, on the right side of democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment