I'm all about free speech. I've said it before, I'll repeat it now: Free speech is one of the most positive elements of our nation's Constitution. People have the right to say anything they want in America.
But at what point is open discourse more threatening than thoughtful? In a scenario where a newspaper faces the choice of publishing an openly contentious opinion -- one that can lead to violence or hostility toward certain groups -- or intervening and not authorizing that viewpoint, it's more important not to promote a bigoted view.
This is the dilemma that Duke University is grappling with right now. In mid-October, the Duke community was sent reeling when its student newspaper, The Chronicle, published an op-ed piece ominously titled "The Jews," claiming that Jewish people are exploiting their suffering during the Holocaust and are "the most 'privileged' minority group in this country." Penned by Duke senior Philip Kurian, co-founder of the Center for Race Relations at the university, "The Jews" and the outcry that ensued have been picked up by local news stations, The Associated Press, The Weekly Standard, a host of other national news sources and The Jerusalem Post.
Whether or not The Chronicle should have run the column may seem like a moot point, but it is a vital part of the debate. In general, as much as it is a newspaper's responsibility to allow for the free flow of ideas, it is also the editors' responsibility to not print hateful rhetoric. By running Kurian's piece in the newspaper, whether they agree with him or not, The Chronicle editors are legitimizing his argument.
In his manifesto, Kurian cites the "shocking overrepresentation" of Jews in top-10 universities. He claims that Penn, as well as Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities, have student bodies that range from one-fourth to one-third Jewish, even though only three percent of Americans are Jewish.
He goes on to say that Jewish suffering, "along with exorbitant Jewish privilege in the United states amounts to a stilted, one-dimensional conversation where Jews feel the overwhelming sense of entitlement not to be criticized or offended."
Chronicle editor Karen Hauptman, a Jew herself, stands by her decision to run the column, though looking back she said might have edited some of the language and "used an alternate headline." Hauptman said, "I believe we were right in printing the column. To not print the column because the opinion presented is offensive would be to ignore a debate that is present around us. ... Even if The Chronicle had rejected the column, the ideas Kurian expressed would still exist."
Yet, these ideas are not nearly as widespread as Hauptman insinuates. Let's put this all into perspective. Penn has a large Jewish population -- 31 percent to be exact, according to Kurian's statistics. Chances are we, including myself, have not encountered any real antagonism or backlash because of religion. Most of the student population is constantly exposed to widespread diversity, be it ethnic, religious or racial; the same is likely true on Duke's campus.
However, the danger of this kind of writing appears when it's read by people who lack that kind of experience -- who lack the exposure to different ethnicities and cultures, and therefore cannot counterbalance such blatant distortions with reality. It's not merely that The Chronicle's editors offended their readers, but more importantly, they repeated hateful stereotypes uncritically, encouraging more people to believe in the stereotypes.
The question of whether promulgating bigotry should be a valid means of expressing oneself is complex, and to some extent ambiguous. People are entitled to hold and articulate controversial opinions; that is part of what makes our society thrive. But a very real threat remains: Even with the great effort to educate and preach tolerance throughout our culture, there is no foolproof method to keep hateful speech from inciting violence.
As unsettling as Kurian's opinions are, the brunt of the responsibility for this imbroglio still lies with The Chronicle's editors, who approved the piece and ran it with virtually no changes or editorial comment.
As such, the backlash against Kurian and The Chronicle's editors is justified and necessary. As much as I believe in freedom of speech, there is a certain accountability that comes with running a respectable newspaper. The perils of promoting negative stereotypes are well-known, and The Chronicle should not have been complicit in their promotion.
Michelle Dubert is a College sophomore from Closter, N.J. Department of Strategery appears on Thursdays.
