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.