Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46:04 AM
I find it interesting when I hear the extreme fringe of the social conservative movement complaining about Political Correctness and college speech codes. It seems strange to hear people who would impose their own censorship, speech codes, and so on complain about those who do the same, just with a different political point of view. Now, I am not talking about the mainstream social conservatives, who generally are as fond of freedom as anyone else, I am speaking of those social conservatives who would use the power of government to impose their own vision of propriety upon everyone.
But, what the social conservative extremists are discovering is actually one of the two arguments against censorship.The first, the idealist argument, is the one with which we are all familiar. That is the argument that the free flow of ideas benefits everyone in the long run, so we should not limit discussion or belief. But,this argument only works with certain presumptions, including the idea that we can gain information through free debate and that we are not in possession of the full truth. For those, such as the PC crowd and the extreme social conservatives, who believe that they are in possession of the truth, or at least that certain viewpoints have nothing to add, this argument is invalid.
Which brings me to the second argument, the practical one. The other reason not to place limits on freedom of conscience is because, especially in an elective government, you are not always going to be in power, and the club you use against your opponents today can be turned on you tomorrow. It is a lesson the hate crime/PC crowd have yet to learn. However, should one day more conservative administrators take over some campuses and start applying speech codes against the excesses of feminists or minority activists, they will come to realize it as well*. The best way to ensure your continued freedom is not to enact laws limiting anyone's freedom, even if they are to your advantage at the moment.
Well, hopefully one day even the most ardent champions on both extremes will come to understand this. They may get some temporary advantage out of muzzling those with whom they disagree, but, in the long run, that muzzle can be applied to them as easily as to their opposition. That the only guarantee of one's freedom is to create an environment in which no one is shackled, as so long as one person is restricted, those restrictions may eventually come to be applied to us as well.
It is a bit of a shame that the idealist argument is heard so often while the pragmatic argument is not. Were we willing to make this more practical argument, it might actually reach a few people our more idealist appeals do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I realize that college speech codes are not governmental action, but rather a private decision by the university. I use them only as an analogy to more formal government action, such as hate crime legislation. However, as the most extreme current example of thought policing, speech codes make for a better example and illustration. However, I realize the difference and am not falling into the trap of
confusing government and private action. (It does seem that colleges provide a "proving ground" for PC theories which later come to drive government policy, so the university is not as completely divorced from the state as other private activities are.)