Stifling of Dissent

Professor Volokh has this post on an example of political correctness stifling open debate in a University setting.



THE ISSUE

This assignment:

Argument



I. Purpose: to persuade or at least to create tolerance for your point of view on a controversial issue; also to acknowledge the opposing side of the issue. . . .



Subjects to Avoid . . .



4. Topics on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science (for example, female circumcision, prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, the so-called faith-based initiative, abortion, hate crime laws, the existence of the Holocaust, and so-called creationism). For example, see Terrence McNally's "Just a Love Story," Los Angeles Times, 13 February 2004: B15. McNally correctly concludes that those who oppose same-sex marriage do so for one reason: homophobia. "Homophobia," as Robert Goss points out, "is the socialized state of fear, threat, aversion, prejudice, and irrational hatred of the feelings of same-sex attraction" (Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993: 1). In other words, homophobia is to gays and lesbians what racism is to people of color. Neither homophobia nor racism can be tolerated in civilized, rational debate; therefore, I will not accept either as arguments, however disguised, in your papers.

Professor Volokh, who incidentally teaches free speech law, copyright law, the law of government and religion at UCLA, has this response:

So in other words, the following arguments are inherently "chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted" -- not just mistaken or incomplete (necessarily, since they're short summaries), but chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted:



"Hate crimes laws are counterproductive, because they reinforce identity politics, and make racial groups more aggrieved at each other rather than less. They are also morally misguided, because assault or murder should be treated the same whether it's motivated by racism or sadism. Finally, they risk unduly interfering with people's free speech because they will often require prosecutors to comb through defendants' political statements and associations."



"Faith-based social programs should be entitled to be treated on an equal footing with non-faith-based social programs. If government money is spent on drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and a religiously themed program seems likely to do a good job at providing such rehabilitation, then it should get rehab funds just like a secular program should."



. . .



"The Establishment Clause has been badly misread by the courts; it should never have been interpreted to apply to state and local governments. Local majorities should thus be entirely free to implement prayer in public schools, should they wish to, so long as students aren't legally punished for not participating." . . .



a professor who holds the "opinion [that there is] no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science [on these topics]" either



1) is strikingly intolerant of reasonable, thoughtful, civilized argument that expresses viewpoints with which he disagrees, or



2) has not given much serious thought to the subjects.



Neither is a quality we should much appreciate in our university professors.

I have rather strong feelings on the stifling of debate in any form, provided what we're talking about is a rational debate rather than hysteria or mindless name-calling.



One of the best classes I ever took was a Con Law II small group class. For two hours, three times a week, students who ran the spectrum from very, very, very conservative to very, very, very liberal were forced to rationally explain their viewpoints in terms of legal theory. We argued the most intricate details of the most divisive issues. Some of the hypotheticals we came up with were so intricate and so unrealistic that it was almost hilarious. The two extremes never did really understand each other, but they did learn how to make their opposite number's argument.



What I learned: 1) Rational people are capable of dissent on any topic. While it's tempting to dismiss the opposition as moronic or bigoted, there will always be some intelligent people who hold that point of view for sound, logical reasons. 2) If you're afraid to ever discuss your beliefs, perhaps you'd better re-examine them. It could be a sign that you don't think they'd stand up to the scrutiny.