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.