Dissenting speech must be protected to educate
By Andrew Whitacre

I deem downright immoral the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s report “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It” because the report lies, endangers the intellectual, professional and physical well-being of our professors and classmates and effectively silences an already battered and marginalized minority at a time when this dissenting voice may save thousands of lives.

ACTA’s report, which brings into question academia’s apparently unanimous opinion that the war in Afghanistan might possibly be a bit unjust, works its logic in the following way.

First, because the majority of Americans support our government’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks — the bombing of civilian and military targets, the plea for “patriotic spending,” the expansion of FBI/CIA snooping powers and the establishment of largely secret military tribunals to try civilians — then all dissenting voices are incorrect and harmful.

Second, paradoxically, the report argues that these voices are so overwhelming (though somehow still in the minority) that they harm us, the students, by creating an environment in which we are afraid to support the “unassailable,” “perfectly correct” majority opinion that the government is functioning perfectly on our behalf at this crucial moment.

Third, in order to counteract our “morally relative” professors and their “anti-American” curricula, speeches and teach-ins, students, trustees and alumni need to do everything they can to replace classes that study Islam, the Muslim world, imperialism — i.e., any course that creates sympathy for another culture — with American history classes (as if we didn’t feel indoctrinated enough during our school years from kindergarten to high school; how many times did you read the preamble to the Constitution? Now how many times did you read the first words of the Koran?). Their rationale goes: “America’s first line of defense is a confident understanding of how and why this nation was founded, and of the continuing relevance and urgency of its first principles. It depends on its intellectuals for passing its heritage on to the next generation.”

While it may be difficult to object to that reasoning, placed in the context of denying others a voice by assuming the preeminence and infallibility of America, this rationale inspires nothing less than awe and fear at ACTA’s ignorance and hypocrisy. Isn’t is possible that better understanding the Muslim world five years ago might have helped us understand the problems the Muslim world has with the United States, and, perhaps, even have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks by putting us, as a country, in a position to address their objections or ameliorate their concerns?

Finally, ACTA’s coup de grace in “Defending Civilization” is their inclusion of a list of statements by academics across the country, statements that ACTA registers as being anti-American. At speeches over the past month, ACTA spokepersons have in fact named names — have blacklisted — the professors that made these “heretical” comments. While the published report only includes school names, departments, or professorship titles, it would take very little work to identify the speakers. As a result of this report and others like it, administrations have censured professors, threatened to revoke their tenure and have suspended both professors and students out of the fear of a public reputation of being un-American. Check the New York Times for some frightening examples (“New Battles in Old War Over Freedom of Speech,” Nov. 25).

It’s perhaps needless to say that “un-American” is a term of incredible subjectivity. ACTA’s definition of un-Americanism includes the following professors’ statements: “(We should) build bridges and relationships, not just bombs and walls,” “We have to use courage for peace instead of war” and “(Our) security can only come by using our national wealth, not for guns, planes and bombs, but for the health and welfare of our country, and for people suffering in other countries.” Professors, admittedly, have made awful remarks — for and against the war — that have shut down free campus discourse as much as ACTA has. But nothing excuses anybody — you, me, ACTA, George W. Bush, anybody — from creating an environment that eliminates the chance for someone to speak, when that very speech act could spawn an idea that saves lives.

Perhaps this would not be so much of an issue if ACTA were a nothing organization, one still searching for a voice like so many other silenced groups. But when none other than Lynne Cheney (our vice president’s wife!) is the spokesperson for ACTA and their report, then we have a serious issue to grapple with. Blacklisting professors with a voice like Cheney’s is nothing less than painting a target on their backs and could result in much more than just their silencing or firing: physical attack is not out of the question.
One need only reference the pro-life group that listed on their Web site the names of abortion doctors, over time crossing off the doctors’ names as they were murdered.

I wish that every student and professor here has the courage to withstand this kind of threat, to stand by what each has learned, but, just as importantly, to be able to create a classroom and campus where everyone feels safe to voice their opinions constructively.
ACTA has gone a long way to destroying our common enterprise to create and enjoy a place to engage in free inquiry and discourse. But as ACTA full well knows, Americans don’t give up their freedoms that easily.