If you were to ask me which American universities have the most odious instantiations of repressive “political correctness,” I’d say Stanford, Columbia, UCLA, Brandeis, and Brown (this is just an impressionistic view). And it’s sad, because those universities are good ones, and are supposed to provide a liberal education. But the student left often converges with fascism these days—or at least with an unenlightened authoritarianism, and those universities are not ones where I’d want to teach.

And here’s a good example of what passes for “rational thought” among college students. It’s a letter appearing in the Brown University Daily Herald: “Asker ’71: Universities shouldn’t speak freely.” (Nicholas Asker is an op-ed columnist for the paper.) The topic is the University of Michigan’s cancellation of the movie “American Sniper,” an issue I reported a week ago.  The cancellation occurred after Middle Eastern and Muslim students objected to the film’s subject, leading the university group showing the movie to substitute a screening of “Paddington Bear”.  Eventually the University allowed “American Sniper” to be shown.

In a weird inversion of priorities, Asker argues that showing that film is actually a violation of free speech: the speech of the students who were offended. And he equates the screening with having Mein Kampf in a waiting room:

It’s a complete mystery why the university thought it was a good idea to begin with to show the movie at a Friday night event designed to provide alcohol-free fun, entertainment and socializing. Just as it would be disconcerting to find copies of “Mein Kampf” strewn amongst the National Geographic magazines in a dentist’s office, so it is strange to find a controversial war movie playing at a casual party. Though there may be an acceptable time and place to read “Mein Kampf,” it’s quite clear that a waiting room is not. Likewise, a fun social function is not the place to watch “American Sniper.”

Now I’m not sure about the nature of the “fun” event, but I don’t see why a serious movie shouldn’t be shown. What I am sure of is that the students who didn’t like the movie or its theme didn’t have to go.  And someone in a waiting room doesn’t have to read Mein Kampf. (After all, I’ve been in plenty of waiting rooms that contain the Bible, something that offends me.) But that voluntary participation isn’t enough for Asker. Have a look at his Orwellian view of how the movie relates to freedom of speech (my emphasis):

But really, canceling the movie is perfectly consistent with freedom of expression, and showing the movie is what contradicts freedom of expression. As we will see, doing so silences Arab voices, so it conflicts with the purpose of promoting free speech on campuses — to foster students’ intellectual growth through exposing them to many different perspectives.

What the hell? Showing a film doesn’t “silence Arab voices”, except that they shouldn’t talk while the movie is being shown! Offended students, Arab or otherwise, have every right to raise their voices in protest. And they should! (And they did.) Somehow Asker, who is a student at a good university, has a deeply warped view of how free speech should function. If you present one point of view, he argues, you have to present them all—at the same time!

Obviously free speech on a college campus is enormously valuable and something colleges should ardently encourage. They should protect the rights of students and student-run groups to show and view almost any movie they want so that they’re exposed to a wide range of viewpoints. There is a significant difference, however, between the university promoting free speech for its students and the university itself presenting only one particular viewpoint on an issue. If the university, as opposed to a student organization, sponsors an event and presents only one viewpoint, it is effectively weighing in on an issue and endorsing a particular opinion — whether it intends to or not. For it is privileging one view at the expense of other views, which, without a university-authorized platform, get pushed into obscurity. The privileged view gets the limelight and, simply because of its prominence, people buy into it.

This is problematic because it’s not the university’s place to persuade its students or promulgate its own opinions. Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule, not its own. Rather than nurturing a diverse symphony of perspectives that free speech policies attempt to achieve, Michigan drowned out alternative views by not giving them a fair shot of being heard.

This is problematic because it’s not the university’s place to persuade its students or promulgate its own opinions. Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule, not its own. Rather than nurturing a diverse symphony of perspectives that free speech policies attempt to achieve, Michigan drowned out alternative views by not giving them a fair shot of being heard.

What is he on about? It was one lousy movie! And the movie doesn’t present, as far as I know, the view that Chris Kyle was an unalloyed hero, or that Muslims are universally to be despised. It is the story of a man who suffers greatly from what he’s had to do—was ordered to do. If you’ve seen his other war films, Clint Eastwood is no super-patriot who sees American warfare as a black-and-white issue. He sees it as a horrible thing that dehumanizes people.

Clearly a university should expose students to a variety of viewpoints, but that doesn’t mean that at any single event, everyone with an opinion should participate or weigh in. Asking a speaker or showing a movie isn’t necessarily an endorsement of that movie, just like showing “Triumph of the Will” isn’t an endorsement of Hitler.

What world is Asker living in? He’s going to get a rude shock when he graduates from Brown and sees what happens in the real world. Out there we have plenty of speeches and talks that are not accompanied by countering views. As for the “privileged view getting the limelight”, I don’t think that’s the case here. What got the limelight was the students’ protest about the film.

So Asker sees “freedom of speech” as the presentation of all voices at any event in which one voice is heard. Whoops! There go commencement speakers, showings of any single movies, any talks at all by individuals (especially controversial talks), and so on. But who is to judge which talks are controversial and need balance, and who is to judge what’s required to provide that balance?

Asker finishes with another black-is-white assertion (or, even more Orwellian, “censorship is freedom” (my emphasis):

If Michigan decided to cancel the showing of “American Sniper,” its decision wouldn’t be censorship or antithetical to free speech. Instead, the decision would reflect an understanding that the showing would give an unfair platform to a much-contested viewpoint. The university would realize that it isn’t its place to provide opinions and that it should always be neutral on issues. In general, universities have a special obligation when they put on events to carefully ensure all views are equitably represented, because they can so easily inadvertently privilege certain viewpoints over others. In sum, universities should promote free speech and vigorous exchange of opinions amongst students but avoid opining and speaking freely themselves.

So the American liberal student body goes to perdition, and it’s sad. At first I thought Asker’s letter was a joke, but I don’t really think so.