amously, the French philosopher, Voltaire is reported to have made the following statement: “I will disapprove of what you say but I will defend to your death the right to say it”.  There is no gainsaying the majesty of those words.  A society that embraces Voltaire’s ideal affirms the humanity of the other even as it holds that individual in question accountable for what she or he says.  Not only that, history shows that where speech is suppressed, progress is impeded.  Recall the Catholic Church’s opposition to a heliocentric conception of our solar system rather than a geometric one—and so the Church’s opposition to the scientific views of Copernicus and Galileo.

It is thus most striking that, in contemporary times, it is on university campuses across the United States that free speech finds its most vociferous opposition.  This opposition comes from distinguished faculty and deans.  It comes from university presidents who ought to be setting a moral tone of democratic excellence involving the free exchange of ideas.  Most poignantly, it is arguable that American universities in the present are to free speech what the Catholic Church was in the past—its worst enemy. 

Indeed, the parallel is more striking than one might first suppose.  After all, the Catholic Church always took its suppression of free speech to be tied to fulfilling the will of God.  To be sure, the idea of God nowadays is seen as some sort of psychological affliction on most university campuses.  Just so, universities seem to have something akin to a gospel after all.  And in the name of that gospel, the suppression of free speech is deemed to be justified.  The quibble, then, is over which gospel to appeal to—and not over whether the suppression of free speech is morally permissible in order to insure that the spread of the gospel in question.

The very idea that one gospel has replaced another is more apt than not.  For as I have already intimated, it is permitted on secular college campuses these days to say any hostile thing one pleases against religion.  One can be downright blasphemous.  “Oh, you would like to urinate on the bible in order to obtain a better grasp your sense of self?”  Please do.

Instead of Genesis or the Book of Job or the Gospel of Matthew, we have three epistles: The Epistle of anti-Racism and the Epistle of anti-Sexism and the Epistle of anti-Homophobia.  And in the name of insuring that verses of these social Epistles have an immutable grip upon the thinking of students, the suppression of free speech is deemed permissible. 

So what is the difference between the Catholic Church and social Epistles of university campuses?  Surely, the answer can be put very succinctly: The Church was wrong, but we are right. 

There is no gainsaying this point: Racism and sexism and homophobia are wrong; whereas Copernicus and Galileo were right but the Church was wrong? 

However, this concession does not undercut the point that universities are suppressing free speech in the name of indoctrinating those who pass through their portals with the social gospels against racism, sexism, and homophobia.  This concession does not turn the indoctrination into a form of speech.  The quibble is simply over what is in fact true—and not over whether suppression of free speech is justified in order to ensure that the truth in question has a secure hold upon the minds of the individuals in question.  Quite the contrary, both the universities of today and the Catholic Church of yesterday are one in claiming that the oppression of free speech is justified in order to achieve this end.

Finally, if the above comparisons were not disconcerting enough, two more significant comparisons are in order.  First, universities engage in a secular version of the threat of excommunication, with the concomitant fear that this threat occasions.  The Church held the key to eternal life.  Few wanted to jeopardize that.  Universities hold one of the main keys to social and economic success.  Few who have opted for this kind of key want to jeopardize their chances of obtaining it.  Second, just as the Catholic Church affirmed and re-affirmed and re-affirmed its views and, moreover, did not brook critical discussions of its view, universities affirm and re-affirm and re-affirm their conception of the social gospels and, moreover, do not brook critical discussions of these gospels.  The Church quickly branded as heretics those who challenged its teachings.  And it did so with smug self-righteousness.  Universities have sanctified the art of calling anyone who disagrees with its social gospel a racist or a sexist or a homophobe.  And they do so with smug self-righteousness. 

Besotted by its own power, the Catholic Church did not grasp the world of fear that it created.  Precisely, the same holds for universities. 

I would that I could say that Syracuse University were a shining exception to the comparison offered above.  Unfortunately, I cannot.  I shall not rehearse some of my concerns here except to say this.  Either Chancellor Nancy Cantor is for free speech on the Syracuse University campus or she is not.  And she and only she can unequivocally affirm the first alternative by explicitly stating that she values free speech and welcomes respectful discussions of her ideas.  But she has not done so to date; and insofar as she refuses to do so, then Syracuse University under her leadership masterfully instantiates the parallel with ancient Catholic Church about which I have written.

I am, of course, ever so mindful of her commitment to the advancement of minorities.  But nothing anyone can possibly say could ever convince me that the good that she seeks to do for minorities cannot be achieved unless free speech is suppressed, either de jure or de facto.  In fact, it is my own view that she is in fact doing minorities themselves more harm than good.  With this thought in mind, I have asked myself the following question over and over again: If it is morally permissible to suppress the free speech of whites in the name of achieving some laudable goal for minorities, then why is it not also morally permissible to suppress the free speech of minorities, too, when doing so would further increase the chances of benefiting them? 

I am a tenured black professor with a very solid teaching and publishing record.  I have also been committed to living a morally upright life.  Chancellor Nancy Cantor can ignore me, but there is very little that she can do to jeopardize my position.  But what about a new and untenured faculty member, minority or otherwise, who is extremely gifted but who holds rather unorthodox views?  Would Syracuse University be the place for that individual? 

If Voltaire were Chancellor he would say to that new faculty member something like this: “Although your views differ mightily from mine, I shall defend with all my might your right to develop your thought.  Indeed, I hope to benefit from reflecting upon our differences just as I hope you, likewise, will benefit from reflecting upon our differences”. 

Thus, who has created a more nourishing environment in which the new minority faculty member might: A Voltaire-like Chancellor or a Chancellor who is deeply committed to helping minorities and who thus feels entitled to say to the minority untenured faculty member: “It is my way or the highway”?  Surely, it is the Voltaire-like Chancellor.  What extraordinary affirmation of a new and untenured faculty member such a statement would be, whether that this is person is a minority or not.  It is in the face of this indisputable truth that I ask Chancellor Nancy Cantor to be explicit and unequivocal in taking a stand for free speech.  

Quite simply the question is this: Is Chancellor  Nancy Cantor willing to affirm the humanity and intellectual creativity of a Syracuse University professor only insofar as the professor accepts her views about racial diversity?  This is the question that I mean to bring to the foreground.  I mean to do so respectfully, but forcefully.  And if I am deemed morally unfit or despicable or unworthy of respect on the part of her and her supporters for doing so, then that, alas, is the problem at Syracuse University.

I should say for the record that In the spirit of free speech, I do not screen comments posted to my blog-entries, including comments that point out my errors in grammar or spelling.  Nor do I remove blog-entries.  In terms of changing things, the most that I ever do is correct the spelling or grammatical errors brought to my attention. 

hancellor Nancy Cantor believes in diversity.  That ideal is one of the signature points of her distinguished career.  In one respect, the very idea that diversity is a good thing seems to be rather like an indisputable conceptual truth.  How can it not be a good thing when different people get together and learn from one another?  And if anything is true, it is true that each ethnic group can learn much from other ethnic groups.

But the view that I have just put forward is a particular conception of diversity.  Let us call it interactive diversity.  As the name suggests, people get together and learn from one another through marvelous and felicitous interaction.  This form of diversity is to be distinguished from what I shall refer to as shared-space diversity, where different ethnic groups are simply in the same room or building or on the very same campus.   People can be in the same room and not give a damn about one another.  Nay, they may radically despise one another.  People often talk as if shared-space diversity naturally gives rise to interactive diversity.  But they are mistaken.  It does not.  And universities—indeed, Syracuse University—are a marvelous and most poignant illustration of this truth.  At Syracuse University: Asians are generally with Asians, whites are generally with whites, blacks are generally with blacks, and so on. 

It is not at all clear to me that Chancellor Cantor is committed to interactive diversity.  Let me explain why. 

A very common view nowadays among liberals is that victims of injustices have a right to be angry and wrong and perhaps even to hold a grudge against persons who are members of the group of individuals who committed the egregious wrongs in question.  I call this the grudge factor. 

Indeed, to hear some liberals tell it a victim does not have self-respect unless she or he is running around being angry and holding a grudge against the wrongs committed against her or his people. 

Now, my intellectual abilities are severely limited.  So I tend to be very simple in what I say and do not say.  By contrast, I expect a very talented person, such as Chancellor Nancy Cantor to be exceeding clear about her intentions. 

So if she really is for interactive diversity and not shared-space diversity on the Syracuse University campus, then I would expect her to say that with unequivocal clarity. 

But wait a minute, there is a fascinating issue here.  For if one is for interactive diversity, then one has to reject what I have called the grudge factor as a proper moral posture on the part of, say, blacks or Indians or whomever.  For nothing is more of an impediment to any two groups interacting with one another, then the members of one group holding a grudge against the members of the other. 

Accordingly, if Chancellor Cantor is for interactive diversity, as opposed to mere shared-space diversity, then she has to be unequivocally clear that Syracuse University is not a place where what one does is learn how to hold a grudge.  Now, for all I know she hold just this view and perhaps it is implied in what she does say.  But it would wonderful—ever so wonderful, in fact—if she were so unequivocally explicit about this that no competent speaker of the English language could fail to grasp that this is where she stands.

It has been suggested to me by a most inform source that her handling of the Hill-TV fiasco was exceedingly complicated.  And for all I know, that may very well be the case. 

All that I can say, however, is that from where I stood, the way things were handled it looked as if the Chancellor had sanctioned a lynch mob on the part of minorities against whites, and thus she had tipped her hat in favor of the grudge factor.  Claims were made about racism on the part of students that were absolutely foreign to me, although I, a very visible black, have walked back-and-forth across this campus for 18 years. 

Not only that, the vast majority of my students have been white; and it is well-known that if there is one thing I will not tolerate, it is disrespect for me as the professor of the class.  You want to see a black man go from being jovial to being utterly outraged faster than the blink of an eye: let a student lift a newspaper in my class.  The student can be any color under the sun; and I will walk out of the class in mid-sentence.  I have done so in the past; and I will do so again.  Here, in fact, is the letter I wrote when a student did just such a thing this past semester, a copy of which was sent to Chancellor Nancy Cantor’s office and also to Dean Cathryn Newton of the College of Arts and Science.

The point of the story is simply that notwithstanding my very hard-line in the classroom, I have experienced none of the disrespect on the part of white students for which the Hill-TV affair became, to the uninformed eye (perhaps), a vehicle for expressing. 

And this brings me back to appearances.  It looked as if Chancellor Nancy Cantor reveled in the idea of minorities being angry and seeing racism at every turn and in every nook and cranny.  Accordingly, it looked as if she had sanctioned what I have called the grudge factor.  By implication, then, it looked as if shared-space diversity—and not interactive diversity—was the order of the day. 

Now, in the final analysis, the simple truth is that no black or Latino (two groups often stereotyped as being intellectually inferior) will ever be secure in her intellectual abilities unless she or he understands in a way that only the experience of success can anchor that she or he can compete with any and all ethnic groups.  This secure conviction comes not by rhetoric or sympathy, though these things may have their place, but only by experience.  On my view, then, mere shared-space diversity continues to have a crippling effect upon minorities.

The issue is not whether racism continues to exist in America or on college campuses.  I assume that it does.  I also think that the racism is more lateral among faculty than lateral among students, which is why I wrote the essay “A Black Conservative Among White Liberals”.  Faculty members compete for scarce resources in a more direct way than students do.  An entire class can receive a grade of “A”.

The real issue, rather, is how we do undermine the debilitating effects of institutional racism and underwrite the abilities of all equally.  And to that I respond: interactive diversity.  For it is then and only then that all bring to the social moment tools for both criticism and self-criticism.  Mere shared-space diversity is compatible with debilitating self-indulgence. 

On university campuses across the United States, diversity is in the end thing.  But we have seen that diversity admits of at least two conceptions: shared-spacediversity and interactive diversity.  The second underwrites equality for all; the first by itself is compatible with the status quo and stagnancy.  Because souls are at stake, I write in the hopes that Chancellor Nancy Cantor not play fast and loose with this difference.  I want her to make it unequivocally clear even to a feeble-minded person like myself that she stands for excellence for all as opposed to sanctifying grudges for some. 

magine a university where people—faculty and students alike—do not free to wrestle with ideas and to engage in rich discussions about alternative points of view.  Why because an unofficial pall has been cast over the university owing to a fear in the air that does not speak its name.  The fear to which I am referring is the rhetorical charge that one is racist or, if not that, then one is sexist or, if not that, then at least one is homophobic.  Charges of this sort tarnish one’s reputation whether they are true or not.  Accordingly, such charges are an extremely effective way to silence one’s opponents.  Imagine a university where this sort of thing goes on, and one place that you will have imagined is Syracuse University.

If this is right, then in a most important respect Syracuse University has become a de facto police state.  And as the history of de facto segregation in the United States makes abundantly clear, de facto practices can be very real and efficacious.  Neighborhoods in the United States remained predominantly white owing to none other than de facto segregation practices: the apartment had just been rented or the announced rent is now 3 times more than what was “mistakenly” advertised.  And so on. 

There are many respects in which I profoundly admire Chancellor Nancy Cantor.  She is clearly a very capable and very ambitious individual.  And I like that in a person.  Before arriving at Syracuse University, she was known for her pro-diversity stance.  Needless to say, she is not open to criticism for having a pro-diversity stance.  She is as entitled to have that stance just as I am to have my stance to the contrary.

But imagine that every time my students disagreed with me, I implied that in some way or the other—sometimes explicitly; sometimes implicitly—that they are racist.  Suppose I argued as follows: “If you are for affirmative action, then you do not truly believe that blacks are the intellectual equal of whites; hence, you are a racist”.  You see, one get “racism” out of just about anything if one is creative enough. 

Now, as a matter of fact, I do worry about pushing affirmative action so hard that the issue actual intellectual wherewithal of blacks drops out of the picture; and increase in diversity numbers may be wonderful, such an increase is not logically connected to intellectual excellence on the part of blacks.  More blacks or Latinos or whatever the minority group does not thereby mean greater intellectual excellence on the part of the minority group in question, any more than it is obviously the case that a vastly white Syracuse University campus has not entailed greater intellectual excellence on the part of whites.  No one can call me racist for saying this if only because in addition to being black I am a tad too smart to be beguiled by that sort of rhetoric.  But it a white professor can easily be dismissed for making just the point that I have made.

Welcome to Syracuse University.  The issue is not whether Chancellor Cantor is pro-affirmative action and pro-diversity.  Rather, the issue is that she is playing in a most vicious way with the idea that those who are not are racist in some way or the other.  And one result of that is a pall of silence across the campus regarding her ideas.

I know this in a very personal way.  In April of 2006, an email was sent out across the campus asking people to sign a petition in support of Chancellor Cantor’s policies.  This email appeared after what is known as the Hill TV-fiasco, where Chancellor Cantor rushed to support the view that the stupidity of the 20 or so students involved was indicative of deep racist throughout the student body. 

Now, I know for a fact that there were many faculty members who quite angry at the way Chancellor Cantor handled the Hill TV-fiasco; and I also know that many roundly disagreed with the email of April 2006.  But there was deafening silence on the part of those who disagreed.  And make no mistake about it, the explanation for that silence is very simple: no white male professor, no matter how tenured and distinguished, wants to have to deal with the issue of appearing to be racist or sexist. 

I know of the disagreement on the part of a number of faculty members because I did write a response to the April email in which I made it manifestly clear that I, as a black man, did not come this far in life to be told that I must be silent when I do not accept a point of view.  Surely, so I insisted, I am entitled to disagree in a respectful manner.  I circulated the letter; and I received enthusiastic responses from a number of people—some in high places, in fact. 

The poignant point here is that I, the black male, could do what none of my white colleagues could do, namely express my view in a peaceful and respectful manner, precisely because I, as a black man, have a certain immunity to the charge of racism.  True, I can as a black man still be quite the sexist.  It is also true that blacks can in fact be racist.  Just so, the charge of racism against does not stick easily, if at all.

Now, what ought Chancellor Nancy Cantor have done?  Needless to say, she has every reason to be grateful for those who support her policies.  In general, public support is a very good thing.  Yet, all the while expressing gratitude to those who support her policies, she could have also affirmed the importance of others to examine critically her policies. By that single move, she would have changed the moral climate of Syracuse University.

I am not a fool.  A fortiori, Chancellor Nancy Cantor is not a fool.  The supporters of that email were effectively saying “If you do not see it our way and support the Chancellor, then you are a racist”.  This was not lost on Chancellor Cantor.  The Hill-TV fiasco committed by 20 students and the rest of the campus was entirely unaware of the ordeal.  But it was used as an excuse to indict the entire campus and to indicate the extent to which the campus was laced with latent racism.  This morally warped and ignominious strategy was not lost on Chancellor Cantor.  Had the stupidity of the 20 not been reported in campus student newspaper, The Daily Orange, the campus-at-large would not have known about it.

The very nature of things is such that to be president of a major university is to have a significant amount of discretionary power, not the least of which is the power to set a moral town.  But there is an unspoken power that Chancellor Nancy Cantor has, namely that she is a woman who very strongly advocates a pro-diversity program.  If one is a white male, it turns out that the most prudent thing to do is to keep one’s mouth shut, lest one be called a racist (not pro-diversity) or a sexist (criticizing a woman, especially a woman who is pro-diversity).  How does she use the power that dares not speak its name? 

Let me illustrate.  My signature course is Philosophy 191.  It routinely attracts around 400 students a semester.  Imagine, then, if I conducted that course in such a way that every white student had reason to suspect that I regard her or him as a racist.  No matter how polite and charming I was; no matter how funny I was: it would be impossible for a white student to not walk away with the sense that I take her or him to be a racist.  Imagine further that I could see racism in just about anything: “A white student is late for class: racism—a lack of respect for a black professor”; “A white student asks a tough question that puts me on the spot: racism—a desire to make a black professor look stupid in front of white students”.  And so on.  In this supposed-class, I never call anyone racist.  But my, oh my: Everyone knows. 

Now, I presume that the enrollment would drop precipitously.  But suppose that students were required to enroll in the course, I take it to be manifestly obvious that my approach to teaching would cast a devastating pall upon intellectual inquiry and discussion.  There would be a deafening silence that had nothing whatsoever to do with the majesty of my lectures or the strength of my argument.  No, the deafening silenced would be due to none other than moral intimidation.  And, of course, students would make every effort to parrot my view so that they could get a decent grade.  But would this have anything to do with learning?  Clearly not.  Needless to say, to teach in this way would be an egregious abuse of my power as a professor and of my social leverage as a black. 

What we would have in such a class is none other than a mini police state.  It would be a de facto one.  If by parity of reasoning a like atmosphere prevails over Syracuse University, then what we have is none other than a de facto police state—the tyranny of the power, to transpose the words of John Stuart Mill. 

If there is one thing that Mill what was unmistakably clear about it is that silencing reasonable discussion could never be justified; accordingly, it could never be virtuous. 

Chancellor Nancy Cantor has the institutional and moral power to invigorate Mill’s ideal of free speech.  Whether she does so not, it remains an unvarnished truth that when people of decency and good will are afraid to express their opinions lest they be deemed racist or sexist, then what we have is a morally scandalous environment and none other than the making of a de facto police state. That is the university climate over which Nancy Cantor, as Chancellor and President, presides.  More importantly, it is also the climate that she has created. For she has, and has always had, the power to affirm ever so magisterially intellectual diversity even as she proceeds full speed ahead with her program of racial diversity.  The simple truth of the matter is that she has chosen not to exercise that power.  Accordingly, that simple truth is telling about her. 

find myself increasingly troubled by the posture of Syracuse University with regard to freedom of speech.  First, there was the Hill-TV fiasco; and now there is the Facebook.Com issue. 

I am a very harsh critique of mediocrity; and I think that Syracuse University has masterfully catered to mediocrity in all sorts of ways.  But freedom of speech is another matter entirely.

ne thing that I utterly despise is the use of the charge of racism as a weapon—a way of bullying and silencing others.  The charge of racism has become a way of taking the moral high ground even when there is no merit to what one claims.  

This is what I hold to be the case with reaction on the part of various individuals to the Hill-TV fiasco that happened on the Syracuse University campus.  I find myself bristling and resenting the way in which the Hill-TV fiasco was construed, by those who ought to know better, as being representative of the entire University community.  For those who do not know:

The Hill-TV fiasco is about 4 or so white male students, with a weekly program, who essentially tried to pull off a Saturday Night Live type of sassiness and unbridled mockery of any and everyone.  The students used various bits of racial imagery in some instances.

I would be the first to admit that much of what the Hill-TV students said was tasteless.  Further, I think that the students deserved to be reprimanded.

What I vehemently object to is that the Hill-TV fiasco was presented as some deep cancer that was widespread throughout the entire University community.  Most students did not watch that Hill-TV program; and most did not even know of the various tasteless remarks made until these were remarks were brought to the attention of the University community by the school newspaper, The Daily Orange. 

But judging from judging from the reaction of various individuals affiliated with Syracuse University, including the Chancellor of the University, Nancy Cantor, one would have thought that just about anyone who was white tacitly approved of the silly remarks made by the Hill-TV group, though nothing of the sort was or is true.  From the way in which the Chancellor reacted, one would have thought that it was as if people were cheering on the sidelines that finally blacks had been put in their place.  Again: Nothing of the sort was or is true.

It gets even worse.  At a discussion of the Hill-TV students that took place in the Killian Room of the Hall of Languages, 6 December 2005, a university faculty member, who is a minority, spoke of being tired of being afraid of walking across campus.  The conversational implicature of that remark is that the racial climate of the Syracuse University campus is such that non-whites have to fear for their well-being in moving about on campus.  That is an extremely serious charge.  And I know of no evidence that warrants it.  In fact, I am not aware of the professor who uttered the remark ever claiming to have been in such a situation.  The best evidence suggests that insofar as Syracuse University folks have reason to be fearful as they move about on campus, this is owing to violence from non-members of the Syracuse University community.  And in many instances, these have crimes have been perpetrated by non-white individuals against white Syracuse University students. 

Now, I am indeed aware that some white Syracuse University students have painted themselves in black-face; and I understand that this is offensive to many members of the black community.  But this behavior, however despicable it may be, is a very long ways from committing violence against minorities.  There is considerable moral space between the former and the latter; and it is wrong to ignore that.

It is wrong to besmirch the moral character of others.  A fortiori, it is wrong to do such a thing for political gain.  And I utterly resent this kind of posturing. 

The students of that Hill-TV program were acting by themselves to an ever so limited audience.  And it is morally despicable for anyone of any rank to engage in a kind of moral profiteering from the inappropriate behavior of the 4 or so students. 

Chancellor Cantor could have admonished and reprimanded the students while acknowledging the Syracuse University community disassociates itself from such behavior.  Indeed, she could have praised the University community for being the kind of community that did not take an interest in the trash that the 4 students produced; though I must confess to being puzzled as to what on earth made Saturday Night Live so popular. 

At any rate, had the Chancellor taken this approach, I would have applauded her in her behavior on the grounds that it did too things at once: On the one hand, it properly spoke to the distasteless actions of the Hill-TV students; on the other, it acknowledged the moral quality of the community of which she choose to be apart.  But instead she came across as if she were a moral gift sent from the heavens to life the University out of the moral cesspool in which it had found itself. 

In so behaving, Chancellor Cantor has done more harm than good.  For she has given people an excuse to excoriate the moral character of others in the name of advancing their agenda.  And this is precisely what far too many people have done.  Indeed, the Chancellor has sullied the image of the University in the naming of purging it of its morally obnoxious character.  And this is wrong. 

How is this possible?  Because we as a nation have allowed the term “racism” to have a moral standing that cannot be diffused.  It has indefeasible moral leverage.  This is not even true of sexism.  Talk about some forms of sexist behavior and, in some instances, people will say, even now, that she was “asking for it”.  With racism, however, no one is ever “asking for it”.  Not only that, if one protests too much against the charge of racism, then that is proof in and of itself that perhaps one is racist after all. 

The white who points out racism against blacks is, of course, ever so sensitive.  And the black, of course, is always affirming her or his self-respect as a person.  This is indefeasible moral leverage; for it is all but irrelevant whether the claims are true or not.  Accuse a person of being, say, homophobic or sexist, and this can be discussed.  Accuse the person of being racist, then the individual stands guilty as charged. 

There has been enormous moral progress in the area of race; and it goes without saying that much moral progress remains to be made in this area.  But an impediment to that moral progress is the reality that the charge of racism has indefeasible moral leverage.  Everyone can be mistaken or have untoward motives.  Making the charge of racism against someone is no guarantee of immunity in this regard, whatever social high it may give one momentarily.  More to the point, insofar as the charge of racism has this indefeasible leverage, then those who readily avail themselves of it are, in the end, doing more harm than good.  

The existence of racism is real enough, without the nonsense of those who are given to flights of fantasy, and so who escalate every moral impropriety along racial lines to that of an actual lynching.  Flights of fantasy at the expense of the moral innocence of others is not moral progress; and nothing on the face of this earth, including position or title, will make it so.