That's Not Who We Are, Or Is It?

“Who we are” debates have centered on immigration policy – a topic not covered explicitly in the Constitution. Nor is there any mention in that document of sex, marriage, privacy, or a large number of other issues that dominate the thinking of many Americans. What is present, however, is a ban on the limitation of free speech. And the states can't do it either. But our own people have found a way to subvert the Constitution that gives them freedom and is the basis for the law under which we live.

Yesterday, following demonstrations in Berkeley, California, (UC Berkeley, the university that claims to be the site of the origin of the “Free Speech Movement) a speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, was prevented from expressing his views. The security forces at the college decided that, because of protests and riots, his safety couldn't be assured.

Students said that they were protesting peacefully and that the violence was caused by outside agitators, anarchists, but a large, and increasing, number of incidents in which a speaker is drowned out or prevented from speaking, exposes not only a hatred of contrary ideas, but a fear by demonstrators of others hearing them. Since 1791 the First Amendment has been part of the Constitution and, in 1977 in the Skokie case, the ACLU maintained, and the Supreme Court decided, that people had the right to express heinous views, even to those who didn't want to hear them. It's not an outdated interpretation. It's recent. There is great fear among many of those who oppose others designated as “strict constructionists” and “originalists,” and they maintain that the interpretation of the Founders in the eighteenth century has to be revised. Whether or not that is the case, it's hardly the first time that a speaker – almost invariably a conservative (or someone who is believed to favor Israel) – has been silenced and denied the right of free speech, especially in academic centers, and often with the aid of faculty. And they will prevent others from hearing whatever they disagree with. Sadly, university officials usually don't enforce rules against such behavior. That, of course, encourages it to continue.

A slightly less obvious form of suppression of free speech has also taken place. It is viewed by its proponents as “sensitivity,” but it is actually “politically correct” speech. And going along with that is the establishment in universities of “safe spaces” in which students will be protected from hearing ideas with which they disagree. It seems that many who seek to learn are only willing to hear what they already believe, and whatever speech disagrees with it must either be replaced or drowned out. It's a definition of education that varies with past expectations. In fact it is a definition that completely negates the idea of a university education that exposes students to ideas they should examine.

Students, however, are not all that different from the rest of society, though they may be more vocal. Protests of ideas have become epidemic – often fueled by professional protesters – and there is an emphasis on euphemism and other politically correct speech and action. Particular groups are in the forefront of the movement – groups that claim a desire for a free and liberal country – but the issue is what they do, not on what they believe or say. And the effect of their actions is to silence those with other points of view.

As I have said before, the real problem is that they are little different from the rest of us in respect to the way that they think. They have their views and want their way. Don't we all? And the Constitution guarantees us the right to say so. But it doesn't give people the right to silence those with other views. Most of us would like to have those with “wrong” views shut up, but most of us would not take action to achieve that goal. The vast majority of those who take such steps were born here. They are our brothers and sisters. They are who we are. And they are wrong. But they have a lot in common with the rest of us – even if they don't represent us.

Who we are – those born here – seems to be self-interested people, but we should not be confused with those who invariably find fault with others, and act more hatefully than those they condemn. Who they are, and what they claim, should not be viewed as typical of all Americans. They are not who we are.