On May 4 at 8 p.m., Ann Coulter will be speaking in the Altschul Auditorium—417 International Affairs—at our prestigious Columbia University. The longtime conservative activist is controversial and has angered many on the left in recent years. Among other things, she has accused a group of antiwar widows (whose spouses died on Sept. 11) of “enjoying their husbands deaths.” She maintains that parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution are inaccurate. She has stated that we should invade countries that sponsor terrorism and “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” At one point, she called the presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot.” However, President Lee Bollinger, in an e-mail to current students and alumni, issued a clear and resounding defense of Coulter’s right to speak. “It is not that I agree with everything that she has to say. It’s just that academics must place a premium on openness, rigor, fairness, originality, and skepticism.” This received a resounding endorsement from a coalition of Columbia left-wing political organizations, who in a joint statement said that “listening to those whose views differ from your own is as American as apple pie.”
Now, as you may have guessed, those last two quotes were completely fictitious. Yet, don’t they sound like things that should be said? The way in which freedom of speech has been doled out on this campus has been inconsistent in recent years. We do not need to go back over the right of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Jim Gilchrist to say what they feel, but it is still surprises me that many “liberals” want to silence those with whom they disagree.
There are two main arguments for censorship of a Coulter-like figure on campus, and I want to explain why they both fail to stand up to real scrutiny. The first is that the author is racist, homophobic, and anti-immigrant, and that Columbia University should take a stand against people who hold such views. Many who have read Coulter’s work (including myself) would maintain that none of the above allegations apply to her, but let us assume for the sake of this article that they all do. Well, if Columbia were to enforce such a policy consistently, it would necessitate excluding other controversial speakers from coming to campus. Also, the University may have to ban literature that it deems discriminatory. After all, isn’t a book just as dangerous as a speech? Come to think of it, many of writings in the Core Curriculum would have to be outlawed. Odysseus is not that fond of foreigners and Oedipus commits incest of sorts. Women are objectified in the Iliad and parts of the Old Testament portray gays in a slightly negative light. The point is, once you start censoring, where do you stop?
The second and perhaps more sophisticated argument is that Coulter does more than hold what average Columbians consider extremist political views. She has made an industry out of saying controversial things. She is a self-serving ideologue who insults, ridicules, and outrages the left, all so she can sell more books. Columbia University should take no part in her games and an academic institution should not be a place that celebrities can use for self-promotion.
Essentially, this argument attacks not what the author says, but the sincerity of her statements. Yet it assumes that Coulter’s right to speak is the only thing under threat. Remember, freedom of expression exists not only so the person who speaks can be heard, but also so that the audience can listen and hear. If we banned Coulter from campus or stopped her from speaking (as with Jim Gilchrist), we would not just be depriving her of the right to speak, but also be denying the right of the many who would not be allowed to listen. She may be a self-serving ideologue, but we should be free to decide that for ourselves.
Finally, it should be noted that any law of censorship requires a censor and necessitates that we ask ourselves the difficult question of who is to decide? Who should tell us what we should hear? Herein lies the fallacy of those who silenced the Minuteman Project and would attempt to censor Coulter. They have taken it upon themselves to tell us what we can and can’t hear. It is a cliché, but such a true one that I will say it anyway. You only truly support freedom of speech when you defend the rights of those with whom you disagree.
The author is a Columbia College first-year. He is the deputy director of operations for the College Republicans.