know of course that Mr. David Duke is persona non gratae on college campuses.  Still, I have a pretty good imagination; and I have always imagined a great debate between me and David Duke.  As is well known, Duke was at one point in time the personification of the idea that blacks and other minorities are intellectually inferior.  It is, obviously, a good thing that universities reject that view. 

The mistake, of course, is in supposing that the rejection of that view entails precluding all public forums at the university that might involve David Duke or, in general, a debate of that view.  Not so, however. 

I suggest that nothing would be more in keeping with the idea that all are equal than a masterful debate with David Duke or others of his persuasion.  Not because this would be tantamount to giving Duke a hearing.  But because it would give scholars the opportunity to show that David Duke’s views are utterly bankrupt.  And I maintained that seeing such a thing demonstrated through reasoned argument would be an absolutely wonderful and affirming experience for all. 

You see, I hold the very simple view that nothing beats experience.  To be sure, there is nothing to be said for experiencing some thing.  For instance, I have never had a bone in my body broken.  And, quite frankly, I am not going to do anything to help matters along in this regard.  I most certainly am not going to do so that I may understand more fully the suffering of those who have suffered a broken bone. 

Anyways, the point is not simply that nothing beats experience.  Rather, the point is that nothing beats the experience of excellence.  People can go around saying “I can do anything” or “I can be anything I want to be”.  This they can do until the cows come home, or whatever it is that cows do that makes the expression relevant here.  But such utterances are no substitute for actual instances of success.  Indeed, they become rather hallow in the absence of actual instances of success.  Nothing affirms one’s belief that one can perform an excellence like an unequivocal display of excellence on one’s part. 

This truth points to why we must be so judicious with praise.  For we deflate its value if we offer high praise for anything that a person might do.  There is, to be sure, the wrong of with holding praise where praise is due.  Alas, this wrong is not corrected by praising a person no matter what. 

Coming back to David Duke, I find that I am becoming increasingly cynical.  For instance, I am less persuaded than I used to be that people actually believe what they say.  David Duke is no dummy.  Hitler was no dummy.  Holding a morally reprehensible view does not suffice to make one intellectually bereft.

This is why I maintain that those who hold such views should be publicly debated.  That said, I want to acknowledge Mr. Brian Romm’s point. 

What I take to be appropriate is not a shouting match where, say, liberal college students drown out every word that Duke utters with their boos.  There would be nothing to be said for bringing Duke to a campus for that.  One could simply show a picture of him or a film of him speaking.  And in turn folks could boo his image to their hearts content. 

The truth, though, is that boos do not constitute an argument.  Accordingly, there really is a limit to how much satisfaction we should take in them.  Indeed, I worry when we take too much satisfaction in our booing another.  For I wonder whether our booing is masking a painfully reality, namely that we do not have in our intellectual arsenal the arguments that are necessary to show that the individual’s point of view—say, David Duke’s position—is intellectually bankrupt. 

The kernel of racism is the view that blacks are intellectually inferior.  Accordingly, what would be far more affirming of the intellectual equality of blacks than booing him is blacks marshalling or witnessing the marshalling of compelling arguments against his view. 

If this is right, then there is a most important respect in which contemporary liberalism is failing minorities.  Indeed, it may be more of the problem than not. 

We know that it is possible for parents to be over-protective.  This does not mean that the parents are not well-intentioned.  Rather, it points to the truth that their good intentions are not by themselves sufficient.  Good intentions are not sufficient in other aspects of life as well. 

I believe in equality.  And I believe that I can out argue David Duke any day of the week.  I believe that I can do so squarely and fairly.  Thus, I do not need boos from the audience as a crutch.  Not only that, I maintain that my belief in equality would be rather vapid if I were not willing to debate in a fair manner a person like David Duke. 

If I am even remotely right, then a most point truth is that college campuses have been more than a little over-protective of minorities.  Campuses have become an environment in which people pat themselves on the back for all having the same views and for vituperatively denouncing those do who do not embrace their views.  While this may feel good to others, this mindset has continuously left me feeling empty.  We all believe in equality.  And we spend next to no time earnestly presenting the other side so that its weaknesses can be revealed.

This is precisely why a debate with David Duke or someone like him is so very important in the struggle for equality.  And, of course, this applies with equal force to all aspects of that struggle: women versus men; Asians versus non-Jews.  And so on.  Mill’s point, quite simply, is that the best proof that the other side holds a mistaken view is that we can show that its best arguments are unsatisfactory.  And in order to do that precisely what we may need is our worse enemy rather than our best friend. 

The argument of this essay makes explicit a view that Mill presumably held, namely that in adequately arguing against the best views that the opposition can present we provide ourselves with a most profound measure of affirmation both morally and psychologically (or both).  This is because we are no longer merely telling ourselves that this or that view is intellectually bankrupt.  No, we have moved way beyond that; for we have then experienced the view as being intellectually bankrupt precisely because the arguments of the view’s most articulate have been shown to be inadequate right before our very eyes.  That would be a majestic moment that no amount of booing can produce, as I assume Brian Romm so nicely grasped. 

Thus, a most poignant question arises: Are we up to the task?  Once upon a time, I would have thought that the answer was obviously an affirmative one.  However, we have become a boo-based culture.  Accordingly, it is no longer clear to me that we are.

Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University

Hugh Lafollette’s essay, “Licensing Parents,”1 raises many, many interesting and intense feelings on the part of its readers; I shall not argue that he is right or wrong.  Rather, I wish merely to address some of the inappropriate arguments against his view.

Many argue that Lafollette’s position amount to some form of eugenics.  But this is so much nonsense.  For eugenics is about invoking utterly inappropriate criteria for eliminating people off the first of the earth—normally a well-identified group of people.  Whatever, Lafollette is proposing he is not proposing eliminating people off the first of the earth.  Nor, again, is he proposing inappropriate criteria for determining who might be a fit parent or not.  Height or foot size or waist size (and the like) are utterly irrelevant when it comes the qualities that are required in order to be a good parent, as is education or economic wherewithal generally.  And Lafollette does not even come close to appealing to these things in his essay. 

Now, there is a concern that was broached by Ames and Berman, namely the slippery slope: Where on earth do we draw the line?

Well, it is interesting that human beings can be very, very good at drawing lines.  Here is an example.  Children can be forcibly taken away from their parents if the parents are abusing their children.  This socially accepted practice has not at all generated any abuse.  Children are not taken away from parents merely because the parents are gay or merely because they drink too much alcohol or merely because they gamble too much.  The socially accepted practice of taking abused children away from their parents has not at all resulted in anything that remotely resemble systematic abuse in the matter of taking children away from their parents.  Certainly, all of us know some pretty terrible parents who are in no danger, nor ever were in danger, of having their children taken away from them.

So we know as a matter of hard reality that from the fact that a practice is, in principle, susceptible to abuse, there need not be any abuse of the practice at all.  In the case removing children from their parents, the reason why there is virtually no abuse at all is precisely because there is such a strong presumption in favor of parents raising their own children that one had to move heaven and earth in order for the idea that children should be moved from their parents (in the case of physical abuse) to gain a foothold upon the members of society.

Any practice can be abused; from which it does not follow that every practice will be abused.  In the fantasy story that I put forward, where Schmo has a hard genetic disposition for being abusive of infants and intolerant of their behavior, it is far from obvious that not allowing persons with the Schmo genetic disposition to have children would result in widespread abuse, and that suddenly ugly people and poor people and gay people and people with broad noses would not be allowed to have children.  For the practice of removing abused children from their parents reveals has not over the course of time rendered us rather blasé about removing children form their parents.  Not in the slightest.  There is no evidence at all of a proclivity to take children away from their parents for other reasons. 

I turn now to an issue raised by Mr. Wilson after class.  It is an indisputable fact that risks are an ineliminable part of life.  From this, though, it does not follow that we should not take precautions where we can.  What is more, notwithstanding the fact that risks are an ineliminable part of life what most certainly does not follow is that it is just fine to expose people to risks.  Thus, I may not play Russian roulette with you on the grounds that, after all, life is full of risks.  From the fact that risks are an ineliminable part of life, it is true nonetheless that I have no right whatsoever to raise (beyond the acceptable level as determined by the circumstances) the risk that you shall be harmed.  Driving, even sober, raises the risk that someone will be harmed.  Driving while intoxicated raises the risk to an unacceptable level. 

Now, the law allows us to arrest people who are driving while they are intoxicated.  The law is not that a driver needs to injure a person first.  So when it comes to matters, the laws does allow for preventive measures.  If there is one good thing that MADD has done it has raised our awareness of just how wrong it is to drive while intoxicated, though doing that alone does not constitute injuring someone.  No, doing so merely constitutes raising the risk of injuring someone to a most unacceptable level.

So there is someone with the Schmo genetic disposition.  In view of the considerations that have been advanced in these remarks, the question that forcibly arises is quite simple: Why on earth should we persons like him to bring innocent children into the world?

The truth of the matter is that the law does allow for us to take preventive measures; and drunk driving is a clear and unambiguous precedent in this regard.  Not only that, it is a precedent that we all accept, without thinking for a moment that we sit at the top of some slippery slope and that it is just a matter of time before we won’t be do anything owing to laws of prevention.  Not even the ACLU, which can see a reason to reject just about any prohibition, has seen fit to challenge laws against drunk driving. 

In the end, Lafollette’s proposal may be indefensible.  But surely someone should at least give voice to the concerns of those who cannot speak for themselves. 

______________

1 Philosophy and Public Affairs 9(1980).

Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University

Thanks to Ms. Clive Tucceri, Philosophy 191 has gotten off to a quite excellent start.  She suggested that courage can be essentially understood as overcoming fear.  This makes courage a morally neutral concept.  Thus, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King can both have courage.  Or, to put the point another way and more generally, there is nothing about being an evil person that makes it the case that courage is less within her or his reach. 

Now, it has been pointed out by various individuals that, as a matter of fact, Hitler not all that courageous at all.  That is, although he himself did some rather mean talking, his behavior did not in reality match his words.  This point has been made in writing by, for example, Mr. Gavin Jones.  However,  Tucceri can acknowledge this point without supposing the the substance of her claim is diminished.  For though it may be true of Hitler that he was actually a coward, this does not mean that he could not have been courageous in the way that Ms. Tucceri is understanding the term. 

Ms. Clare Rutz does not reject the importance of overcoming fear, but she adds a most important qualification, namely that the act must be selfless in terms of its motivation.  Messieurs Bach and Meisel are of the mind that courage need not be all that selfless; and they both both offer a similar type of example: the underdog who is told to go away, but who hangs in there nonetheless and who ultimately proves to be rather successful. 

Kyle Maynard is undoubtedly a case in point.  Born with a birth defect that left him essentially without fully-formed limbs, he went on to become a very successful wrestler.  What is surely the case, however, is that at the outset many people did not take him seriously, supposing that he was merely joking or that he had a most ludicrous wish.  But he prevailed and went on to gain the admiration of all around him.