Liberalism and the Paradox of Tolerance: Is the Marketplace of Ideas a Free-For-All? The Skidmore News – Skidmore News

Hundreds of Skidmore sophomores attended President Conners speech on September 6, in which he discussed the importance of differing opinions. I, too, believe there is value to be found in other peoples opinions, and that disagreement, or the discussions resulting from it, can benefit us. It is in that light that I would like to present a divergent perspective on two of the topics from his speech.

Allow me to preface this piece by saying that I hold full respect for our College President. While I disagree with some of the ideas expressed in his speech, this does not reduce his intrinsic value as a person or the value of his opinions. Instead, I am merely engaging in the very discourse and discussion of opposing opinions which he advocates for by presenting my perspective on this matter. In particular, I find two main points of difference between us: the paradox of tolerance, and whether the far left is equal to the far right.

First, let us discuss the paradox of tolerance. During his speech, President Conner suggested that all opinions must be heard. On the surface, our views have much in common, in that I also would like to hear many different views. This raises a question of whether all views should be tolerated. At first glance, it may seem best to have everyone speak. However, further inspection of free speech absolutism reveals potential issues in this plan. For many topics, this may be fine. But what of those who advocate violence against others, whether for beliefs or immutable characteristics? What of a student group which wishes to bring a racist, or homophobic, or antisemitic speaker to campus? These may seem like edge cases, but a skim of the past few years worth of newspaper headlines yields plenty of such incidents and resulting aftermaths on campuses. Clearly this is a topic in need of examination.

The philosopher Karl Popper outlined this issue in 1945, in his tract The Open Society and Its Enemies. In that text, he describes the Paradox of Tolerance as such: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In other words, if we allow intolerant ideas to propagate through society, intolerance will build and override the tolerant society. Indeed, this has played out through history in regimes such as Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, where intolerant anti-liberal ideologues took power and removed the right to free speech, quashing discourse.

While I do not think this extreme level is likely to happen on our college campus, it is worth considering the potential consequences of allowing such views on campus. On smaller scales, oppressive movements can still be devastating to discourse. Can minority students truly speak freely if they are under constant threat from far-right white nationalist groups? While words themselves are not violent, they certainly have the power to encourage violence or intimidate with the threat of violence. It would be lying to say that threats or doxing, which would have to be permitted under a free speech absolutist doctrine, do not have the power to cause harm. Violent and intolerant ideologies can also spread through words and can take hold on campuses. As such, free speech absolutism is not a tenable policy.

As in the name, this is a paradox, and does not have an easy solution. However, I would venture forth a possible model: hate speech laws. Unlike the United States, most countries have laws prohibiting hate speech against protected groups. While these laws are unlikely to be implemented federally, a private university or other institution should be able to place such policies in order to protect minority students. This leaves plenty of room for rich discussion on many topics while seeking the protection of marginalized groups. No ones right to exist should be up for debate, and this is a way to protect speech on other points of policy while simultaneously ensuring that all people have security and freedom to be. How to define hate speech is another issue, and this is one which we can discuss, though marginalized groups affected by it should lead the discussion.

In addition to my disagreement regarding speech with the President, I also disagree with a part of his speech where he claimed that the left is censoring people and that the far left is equivalent to the far right as a threat. This mirrors comments which he made in November of 2020 on a Zoom call with students, where he mentioned both the far left and neo-Nazis as threats. While I recognize his right to this opinion, I do not believe this to be true on a few grounds. First, there is no organized far left in this country, while there is an organized far right. Regardless of what conservative pundits say, the Democratic Party is far from far left; most of the positions in the party platform would be considered centrist or even center-right in most of the world. There are outlying groups, such as the Communist Party USA, but these are very small groups with little to no political power or voice. On the other hand, there is an organized far right party: the Republican Party. It was members of that party which attempted to overthrow the government on January 6, which attempted to interfere with a fair and free election in the months leading up to it. Thus, the power of the far left and far right are not comparable.

Aside from organization, I would argue that the goals of far left and far right political movements are not equivalent. Far left political positions include policies like single-payer healthcare, environmentalism, and improved worker rights. Far right positions often (but not always) include suppression of dissent, religion in government, and occasionally genocide as seen in historic far right movements. I do not think it is honest to compare the former list to the latter. This does not of course mean that everyone on the far left is one way or everyone on the far right is another, but these tendencies suggest a major difference between the two.

While I differ on the details, I hope that this establishment of different viewpoints and discussion thereof allows us to establish a dialogue so that we might come to a better understanding of these issues and find a solution that works for all of us.

Read more from the original source:
Liberalism and the Paradox of Tolerance: Is the Marketplace of Ideas a Free-For-All? The Skidmore News - Skidmore News