COLUMN: Protecting Free Speech

From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95Over the past month, free speech has yet again been called into question on the University's campus. The history of this debate on campus is well documented -- in 1993, Gregory Pavlik's DP columns led to the newspaper's confiscation and then, of course, there was the infamous 'water buffalo' incident. Many in the community cried censorship and demanded that the magazine receive funding to publish. The Daily Pennsylvanian editorialized twice on the issue defending the absolute right to free speech regardless of its content. And as a member of the editorial board, I will continue to defend this right on which our very country has been founded. Following the debate over The Red and Blue, I was confident that the campus community had realized the importance of defending the right to speak, especially when the speech is controversial, radical or extreme. I was wrong -- some members of the campus community still have not understood the fundamental right one has to speak his mind. My exposure to the censorship versus free speech debate this time centers on the B-GLAD supplement in the DP and Marc Teillon's subsequent column on the issue. When presented with Teillon's "B-GLAD It's Only Two Weeks" column for the first time, the thought never entered my mind not to publish the piece. Not because I necessarily agreed with what he had to say, but because the DP has never censored a column based on its content. If the column would have been anti-Semitic, anti-black or anti-anything, I would still have published it. The reason is because I fully believe in an individual's right to express his or her opinions. In this instance, I found myself in the same position as SAC members the night they voted on The Red and Blue. SAC chose censorship as the answer to speech that they found unacceptable. But for me, I am the editor of a page that has one purpose -- to provide a place for campus debate. Who am I to say that one person's speech is unacceptable or which side of the debate is the right side? In my experience, each person is entitled to take his own side in a debate. As a result, I chose to uphold free speech even though I knew that the words might be hurtful to some people. The responses I received this week, however, amazed me. I do not believe I have ever received more phone calls or letters telling me that I should have censored Marc Teillon's column. I had thought the DP's stance on censorship was clear after Gregory Pavlik, after the 'water buffalo,' and after The Red and Blue saga. But still, some in the gay, lesbian and bisexual community and others have called for censorship and silence. Here are two examples of responses that I have received to Teillon's column that illustrate my point: "The problem [with Teillon's column] stems from the DP editors, columnists and writers refusal to publish articles that are as racist as Teillon was homophobic?What I find so surprising is that during Latino awareness week in October not one article bashed any of the leaders of Hispanic organizations?The existence of this article far transcends issues of freedom of speech." Another reads: "I question whether an open exchange means that every opinion, no matter how hostile to individuals and groups on campus, must be published in the DP," one writer said. "Do not allow fearful and angry young men to spew hatred and contempt as legitimate modes of discussion at Penn." The letter goes on to ask, "Why would you publish a piece that directs hatred and intolerance at members of your own community?" Obviously the extreme importance of free speech has not sunk into some heads on campus -- so allow me once again to explain. The DP should not be the organization to decide which speech on campus is acceptable. That job should be and is left to the entire community. Teillon published his beliefs in a column, and judging by the number of responses still pouring into my office, many in the community have let Teillon know that his words are not acceptable to them. This is how it is supposed to work -- one individual speaks and others refute that speech with more speech. When a column is printed on page six of the DP, anyone in the community has the opportunity to respond. This way everyone on campus has the chance to form their own opinions on an issue. By censoring any column, including Teillon's, I am removing the columnist's freedom to speak and I would also be sending the message that the University community is not capable of deciding for itself what speech can be tolerated. I should not and will not serve as the speech police, censoring what in my opinion is hateful speech. My opinion and the opinions of the editorial board do not form the opinions of campus. More importantly, by printing angry speech, the community will be able to more readily recognize and pinpoint ignorance and bigotry. By censoring controversial speech, society loses the target at which to aim education and intelligent reasoning. This is the beauty of free speech. We can avoid more eras like McCarthy's and at the same time we can identify the mean-spirited and refute them. But if the DP or any other publication censors speech, then society has a more difficult time locating the ignorant. And if community members cannot identify the ignorant, then society will never be able to enlighten the close-minded. Finally, let me remind you that it is free speech and free expression itself that has aided all minority groups, including the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities on campus, in making strides toward true equality. And, as a result, free speech is something that must be embraced, not feared. And if you do not believe me, maybe you should ask the editors of the B-GLAD supplement in last Tuesday's DP. In the supplement, the co-editors sum up this point rather nicely: "The silencing of any voice on campus, whether we agree with that voice or not, is immature, irresponsible, and detrimental to the educational process as we know it."