Seeking 'open discourse'
To the Editor:
The Penn community is permeated by the idea of promoting diversity and the opportunity for all voices to be heard in an open discourse. However, it has been my experience as an undergraduate that this is not the case. I am writing specifically in regard to the debate between Pat Buchanan and Howard Dean, but it is only one example of an issue that has been wearing upon me since arriving at this university over two years ago.
Upon first learning of the debate, I was excited to be afforded the opportunity to hear from two prominent politicians, allegedly with differing views, especially with the approaching presidential election. As I sat through the debate, though, I was increasingly unsure about which of the speakers was more liberal, and I think Dean put it nicely when he made a statement jokingly alluding to the idea that Buchanan was further "left" than he was. This is not to say that they agreed on every issue, because they did not; however, I would have much preferred to hear from two speakers who differ on key issues, such as the war in Iraq or President George W. Bush's ability to lead the country, thereby aiding me, a 20-year-old who is voting for the first time, in making an informed decision. After all, there are two sides to every argument.
Instead, I heard more of the same snide comments that have saturated this campus in recent weeks, and I left the "debate" even more frustrated about the state of dialogue than I had previously been. I therefore urge the Penn community, from the individual level up to the administration, to truly consider whether "open discourse" is being sought, or if it is merely a facade covering the underlying desire to reaffirm our own beliefs.
Liz Spangler
College '06
The danger of censorship
To the Editor:
Jessica Lussenhop ("Political ads debase both campaigns," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/15/04) suggests one of the most fallacious and dangerous ideas I have heard in a long time: "Ads should be required to obtain the approval of a panel of fact checkers before being unleashed on the public."
Can you say censorship? I fail to understand how we save democracy by letting a handful of investigators define the official political truth. Lying politicians are distasteful, but that sounds just plain scary. Who will these "fact checkers" be? Who will appoint them? And why does Lussenhop have any more confidence in their integrity? Her reasoning is as naive as the American people she derides for their ignorance. If the president of the United States and a U.S. senator can "lie" to the American people, what puts a few professors beyond the same error?
There is a lot wrong with American politics today. I would, however, submit that this is nothing new and nothing surprising. Even when civilized, democracy is messy and ugly. The answer, however, is not to entrust it to the experts, because democracy is based on the principle that we would rather be free to err than compelled to be right. It works because free people have an interest in getting it right -- and they do, often more often than the experts. As William F. Buckley Jr. put it, "I would sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard." Lussenhop's errors aside, I agree.
Justin Raphael
College '06
