Weird Ideas on Free Speech at Wellesley College Part 2 - The Wellesley News Editors Response to their critics
Needless to say the editorial in the Wellesley News created quite a reaction. I'll provide examples of those in the next part but apparently the opposition was so intense it provoked a second editorial from the Editorial Board at the Wellesley News in response. The Editors close the second editorial by saying:
"Thus, we respect the right to use speech to challenge other views. We will listen to and dismantle arguments and opinions that threaten a person’s ability to speak freely."
However, when you read the body of the Editorial you will find they do not respect the right of people other than themselves to use speech to challenge other views and they did not listen to, much less dismantle, the arguments and opinions published in opposition to their views.
The Editors clearly did not "listen to and dismantle arguments and opinions" of those who cited the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said:
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Just above the sentence where the Editors promise to listen and dismantle is this statement: "We fight not against free speech, but to protect members of our community from language that harms or threatens their well-being." The words not stated there are that they, the Editors of the Wellesley News get to decide what harms or threatens the well-being of the members of the community.
For example, as to their critics, the Editorial Board says "...they seem unable to dissociate their judgments from overtly sexist commentary. Comments and tweets responding to our article referred to us as having 'our pantyhose in a twist over free speech…'" Thus the opposition is sexist and the words of those opponents is hate speech.
"Thus, we respect the right to use speech to challenge other views. We will listen to and dismantle arguments and opinions that threaten a person’s ability to speak freely."
However, when you read the body of the Editorial you will find they do not respect the right of people other than themselves to use speech to challenge other views and they did not listen to, much less dismantle, the arguments and opinions published in opposition to their views.
The Editors clearly did not "listen to and dismantle arguments and opinions" of those who cited the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said:
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Just above the sentence where the Editors promise to listen and dismantle is this statement: "We fight not against free speech, but to protect members of our community from language that harms or threatens their well-being." The words not stated there are that they, the Editors of the Wellesley News get to decide what harms or threatens the well-being of the members of the community.
For example, as to their critics, the Editorial Board says "...they seem unable to dissociate their judgments from overtly sexist commentary. Comments and tweets responding to our article referred to us as having 'our pantyhose in a twist over free speech…'" Thus the opposition is sexist and the words of those opponents is hate speech.
Now I am certain there were some morons who expressed their opinions in sexist and hateful terms. But the Editors use that portion of the respondents to label all who responded and make no effort whatsoever to address the many legitimate points made about the errors in their editorial. Nowhere in their second editorial do the editors share any of the non-sexist comments made in opposition to their position to show they have listened to or are able to dismantle those arguments. One must assume they omit these words to "protect members of [their] community from language that harms or threatens their well-being."
In fairness, I have to admit the Wellesley News website does not permit show letters to the editor, just letters from the editors so I cannot say whether they published opposing views separately. However, any good debater knows you take on the key points of your opponent in your argument and not just list them elsewhere and let them go without response.
Recall in my first article I listed a variety of opinions - concerns about minority children born out of wedlock, Muslim terrorists, and violence against women in rest rooms - and said these have been labeled as racist, Islamophobic, and transphobic, and each has been labeled as "hate speech."
Here we see the Editors respond to their critics the same way - stupid comments are used to classify all opposition, commentary is offered regarding points that have nothing to do with the key issue, and the valid points that are relevant being made are brushed aside or ignored because they are able to label everything as sexist and hate speech.
Thus the second editorial by the Wellesley News Editorial Board demonstrates exactly why Justice Holmes was right in his opinion - the thoughts that most need protection are the ones we hate. Otherwise, discourse on key issues will not occur because people like the Editors of the Wellesley News will label anything they don't like as "hate speech" and deny those who express those view the right to express them.
It's unfortunate the education provided at Wellesley College is not sufficient to impart that wisdom on the students who make up the Editorial Board at the Wellesley News.
Sources:
The quote from Justice Holmes was copied from the ACLU website:
Comments