Most everyone seems to agree that Tuesday was not our university’s finest hour. I’ve heard many of my friends express some sort of embarrassment for being affiliated with Brown after the Ray Kelly event was shut down because of unruly protestors. But my shame stems not from the fact that a bunch of Ivy League liberals shouted down an authority figure with whom they disagreed, but from the fact that the university invited Kelly to speak at all.
Allow me first to say that I am not speaking on behalf of any of the protestors. I was unable to attend the Kelly event and know of what happened only from others’ stories. Further, I admit that I am skeptical about whether shutting down the event by shouting down the speakers was the most effective means of making the point. That said, it is important to distinguish between objecting to the university’s legitimizing racism and infringing upon the sacred freedoms of speech and thought — and judging by the reactions I’ve seen and heard from my peers, most of those who were offended by the protest are failing to understand the difference.
It is easy to cast the protestors as stubborn illiberal liberals who seek to stifle the opinions of those with whom they disagree. Perhaps for a minority of them that is true. But Kelly, best known for his association with the New York City Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” racial profiling practices, does not just represent a competing ideology. It’s not just that his views and policies are wrong, it’s that they are based on fundamental racial prejudices that have no place in intellectual discourse.
It is an honor to be invited to speak at an Ivy League university. Just by association, the scholars and luminaries who are chosen to be our guests of honor are lent a unique ethos. For an outsider, to be honored with prestige in academia is a privilege that (in theory) only the most intellectual, inspirational, and truly exceptional enjoy. When Brown University invites someone to speak on campus, we are endorsing him or her as someone whose views are worthy of intellectual discussion and debate at the highest level. By doing so for Ray Kelly, Brown University offered this legitimacy to a man who is best known for judging people by the color of their skin.You have a right to be racist in this country. If you think certain groups of people are better or more righteous than others, that’s your prerogative. But let’s call it what it is. And bigotry has no place in the most inclusive, open, and accepting community of people I have ever been a part of. “Racism is not up for debate,” one protestor shouted. But according to Brown University, it is.
Ron Paul wasn’t treated this way when he came to campus a few months ago. If Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan came to Brown there might be controversy, but surely each would be allowed to have his say. Why? Because, for whatever objections our students might have to their ideas, there is room for debate. They are thoughtful people who (when they’re not speaking in sound-bites) have interesting and substantive things to contribute to discussions of the biggest issues we face today. Say what you want about their approaches to policy, but their views are not fundamentally based on a distrust of people who are different from themselves.
Would it be appropriate for Brown to pay and give an official platform to Fred Phelps, the head of the Westboro Baptist Church? What about Thomas Robb, National Director of the Ku Klux Klan? Or Jeff Schoep, Commander of the National Socialist Movement? Each of these men has the unalienable right to speak out about what he believes in — including on the street corner across from Faunce, where in my time at Brown several intolerant groups have come to tell us that we’re all going to Hell — but because their views are all based on bigotry and hatred they have no place in the world of intellectual debate.
I realize the potential danger in dismissing some opinions as illegitimate (as a member of the Green Party I am no stranger to the feeling of having my views tossed aside as irrelevant). But when it comes to inviting public figures to speak at campus events, it is fair to expect a certain standard of sensibleness from our honored guests. And saying that the people who whom our university lends legitimacy must have their opinions based in something other than bigotry is not an unreasonable demand.
If I had attended the Kelly event, I don’t know whether or not I would have joined the shouting. On the one hand, it worked, it became a national story (Brown might not come out looking very good, but neither does Kelly) and I am proud to have seen civil disobedience in action on campus. On the other hand, even if it was justified I think it is fair to question the protestors’ methods. Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of satyagraha, which also inspired Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, was based not in anger but in love — these great leaders knew that only compassion could ease the hatred in their oppressors’ hearts. Regrettably, it seems that lesson has been lost on the Brown community.
I don’t know that I agree with the protestors’ actions on Tuesday. But I am far, far more upset by the fact that our university has implicitly legitimized racism as an intellectually defensible point of view. And it is as unfair as it is incorrect to describe the protestors’ frustration with this endorsement of bigotry as a desire to censor free speech.
Great column.
Storm in a teacup. Please stop this silly debate and go raise hell. Life is short, and Kelly a bigot. Occasional acts of righteous vandalism get the blood flowing.
Go Lewie!
Louie:
I think there are some major flaws in your argument. 1) Inviting a speaker to campus is not an endorsement of his/her views. Brown hosts speakers of various views to encourage debate and discussion. In fact, speakers like Ray Kelly are often invited BECAUSE they are controversial and will bring out a point of view to spark discussion. At not point did Brown or the Taubman center state that they approved of Kelly’s views or policies.
Imagine the practical consequences of your view. If a group wanted to hold an event about a topic they would never invite someone with an opinion they considered outrageous. So the group would only bring in speakers the audience mostly agreed with and nobody would learn anything. Is that really what you want, especially at a university?
2) You say that it’s not controversial views that should be barred (such as Paul’s, Cruz’s) but that what sometimes underlies those views (racism) should be barred. You can not separate views from what underlies views. There is not objective way to do it. Imagine if I could just say that I found so and so’s views racist on a deeper level and so that person should not be invited. Quickly, we could descend into a situation where anyone could be banned for what underlies their views, which in effect would no different for barring someone for their views.
In my opinion it would be sign of strength for the university to invite Fred Phelps or Thomas Robb. Students could respectfully criticise and show Phelp’s/Robb’s views to be wrong. There is no issue that is not up for debate.
I hate stop and frisk. Your criterion for an acceptable view in discussion is that it’s based in ‘something other than bigotry’. Stop and frisk is ABSOLUTELY based in something other than bigotry. Though you (and I, for that matter) have a decided opinion on the policy, stop and frisk’s impetus is not the clear cut racism of a Nazi or KKK member, but ‘community safety’. In the cities, police action occurring at higher rates against minorities *can conceivably be* tied to the fact that crime rates are higher among minority populations in the first place.
Now I think the arguments by Ray Kelly and his cohorts are incredibly euphemistic, incorrect and abhorrent. I don’t think any amount of crime data justifies stopping people on the street whole are not actively engaged in a crime. But let’s have that debate! Many are basing their views on whether or not this debate should’ve happened on their opinions on this policy. It’s true, a policy that places undue burden on a minority group is possibly racist. In this case, I do think there is a lot of a racism involved. But, let’s take limiting food stamps. Black people take a disproportionate amount of food stamps, so limiting them could be racist. If I decide that limiting food stamps is therefore racist, whether it is or not, should I shout down Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul since they all support that?
I’m not saying invite a bunch of swastikas and white hoods to speak. But influential policy makers should be able to discuss influential policy in a forum on policy. Even though I hate stop and frisk as much as many of these protesters do, this is a prime case of illiberal liberality.
actually, white people take a disproportionate amount of food stamps
Take a stab Bradley. I actually have more or less come to agree with Lewie’s point that the university should have been more circumspect with someone like Kelly. Still very much anti-shoutdown to speak for myself.
This is particularly dishonest. Where to begin.