All that separates free society from the enslavement of the masses is the ability to object. The enemy of debate, however, is the lust for validation, from which erupts the desire to eliminate competing voices. Yet, the endeavor to achieve social progress and the endeavor to cultivate unanimous, inoffensive consensus are irreconcilably antithetical aims. The growth and progress of society irrefutably lie in the ability to acknowledge imperfection, and this is only possible where speech is permitted to challenge the status quo. The refusal to hear opposition does not make the favored rhetoric more salient by default – it merely accentuates the faulty assumption that one’s perspective cannot be improved upon. To that assumption, our Founding Fathers would emphatically object. There is no absolute perfection – they have suggested – only the pursuit of that which is more perfect.
There is something deeply human about the desire to be infallible, which spurs the rejection of counterarguments and dismisses salient opposition. But those with their ears closed and their mouths opened hear only that which they already knew. From this self-confirming bias comes the push to reduce harmonies to a monotonal society. That, however, is not so much a peaceful society but one which has successfully suppressed dissident speech. Humans were not endowed with individual consciences and the ability to form opinions merely to morph into a monochromatic void of like-mindedness.
The discomfort felt at the distinct lack of unanimity is simply a necessary byproduct of societal evolution. As Richard Posner so aptly put it, “People are often deeply offended by hearing their religious, moral, political, or even aesthetic beliefs challenged; and offense is a cost. But it is also… an unavoidable concomitant of social progress, which depends on the continual overthrow of orthodoxy.” What freedom of speech boils down to, then, is a simple cost-benefit analysis: is the cost of offense so great that it outweighs the importance of the cornerstone of free society?
So for those who constantly raise objections and put to the test the limitations or proposed restrictions of theirs or others’ speech, continue to do so. You rightfully – and I do mean right-fully – should be concerned about societal currents tossing freedom of speech to the sidelines. Further, the education system ought to be the place where objections and diverse opinions are most hotly debated and critically analyzed. Emphatically come to the defense of the expression of opposing opinions, play the devil’s advocate, and challenge your peers, for it is the constant dismissal or utter disrepute of alternative perspectives that creates an environment doomed to anti-secular regression. Efforts to prevent entirely the utterance of certain perspectives are the weeds which strangle the fruits of critical thought.
It is difficult to imagine a world wherein no one is ever discomforted by the words of others. It seems a futile endeavor, then, to seek to cultivate an environment wherein every citizen at all times vigilantly polices his or her own thoughts, so as to minimize the probability of an offensive iteration of those thoughts into words. Moreover, this comes at the risk of great societal cost. In education generally, and higher education specifically, that risk is not merely hypothetical. In my personal observations, students of certain political persuasions, for instance, carefully monitor their speech, both in class and in written submissions. More often than not, they are the quiet students, sacrificing their participation grades for the sake of avoiding the backlash to their honestly-expressed views.
And what of disinformation? What about the genuine lies and unfounded claims spread unfiltered across the internet? To that, I would say, democracy is predicated on the idea that the average individual possesses adequate intellect to distinguish truth from falsehood. Certainly, you are free to shake your head in disagreement and doubt whether the average person is truly of such intelligence. But then, I would proffer, your objection is not with speech, but with a society that puts its faith in individuals – and that is an altogether different debate. People will undoubtedly and, I might add, unavoidably be misled or seek to misguide others. But to suggest that some have the authority to say what truth is, while others should simply accept that assessment, is, at its core, elitism. It is the belief that, for one reason or another, one group has rightful jurisdiction over another. Into that arena, we dare not venture. So be annoyed, take offense, express your distaste, and sacrifice some comfort. But take solace in knowing that that sacrifice is not nearly so great as the sacrifice of being disallowed from expressing your grievances. For whether the tides flow in your favor today or tomorrow, an authority capable of silencing your foes is capable of silencing you.
Free speech is a constant tug-of-war between recognizing legitimately problematic or inciteful speech and undermining the most prized feature of our Constitution. Every day, different sects of the nation filter out as falsehood more and more facets of one flavor of speech or another. In this way, your fear of the loss of free speech does indeed manifest – perhaps today in small ways, but tomorrow, in large. Be a force, then, who emphasizes a continued focus on, and appreciation for, the fundamental importance of the ability to vocalize dissent, for the widespread forfeiture thereof is a situation far more discomforting than speaking up in class.
