Spring Break
The Daily OrangeProfessors wrong on free speech
By
Posted: 11/18/05, 1:29 AM EST Section: Opinion
Maxwell professors may recall an incident in the 1980s, when a professor in France, Robert Faurisson, was prosecuted for publishing works that denied the Holocaust. While several hundred scholars around the world signed a petition supporting Faurisson's right to academic freedom, the French intelligentsia cheered the censorship, being unable to distinguish between a defense of Faurisson's rights from an endorsement of his theories (which were almost universally dismissed). Noam Chomsky, one of the signatories, explained, "It is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended."
The point is that the right to free expression is fundamental. The professors who believe that it cannot apply here "largely because this is a private institution" clearly do not understand the universality of a freedom means it should apply to all institutions, whether currently allowed or not. Furthermore, the defense of the right of the students to free expression is not narrowed upon any right that individual HillTV staffers had to make racial jokes on the university's television programming. It's a protest against the censorship and destruction of the entire network. It was Chancellor Cantor's unilateral decision to shut down all of HillTV that resulted in a backlash. I hope the professors who signed the dissenting letter will come around to understanding that opposing Cantor's decision is neither an endorsement of the jokes, nor an argument that no action should have been taken, but instead a protest against an abuse of power.
Kevin Malley
Senior political science major
The point is that the right to free expression is fundamental. The professors who believe that it cannot apply here "largely because this is a private institution" clearly do not understand the universality of a freedom means it should apply to all institutions, whether currently allowed or not. Furthermore, the defense of the right of the students to free expression is not narrowed upon any right that individual HillTV staffers had to make racial jokes on the university's television programming. It's a protest against the censorship and destruction of the entire network. It was Chancellor Cantor's unilateral decision to shut down all of HillTV that resulted in a backlash. I hope the professors who signed the dissenting letter will come around to understanding that opposing Cantor's decision is neither an endorsement of the jokes, nor an argument that no action should have been taken, but instead a protest against an abuse of power.
Kevin Malley
Senior political science major
