Like her or not, Ann Coulter has the right to be heard by those who want to listen.
As I wrote last week, at least 145 people registered to attend Coulter’s talk on the Cornell ticketing website. While we cannot be sure whether these people were Coulter’s supporters or detractors, what is clear is that there were some on campus interested in hearing her thoughts. The actions of an organized group of disrupters prevented those in attendance from both listening to her opinions and having the opportunity to challenge them during Q&A.
Ahead of last week’s event, there were some who defended Coulter’s right to speak. Most notably, alumnus and former trustee Robert Platt ‘73 Law ‘76 wrote an excellent Letter to the Editor in the Cornell Daily Sun. Platt observed, “All Cornell students have an equal right to participate in organizations and to sponsor speakers, regardless of whether you like their national umbrella groups or their ideals.”
While this piece was generally well-received online, there was one comment that piqued my interest:
It seems at least one member of the Cornell community, and perhaps the disruptors, believe that there is a “right to speak, not to be heard.” Sounds paternalistic, does it not?
Now, as individuals, we should have the right to choose which ideas we ourselves wish to engage with. A devout, religious student should not be mandated to go to a meeting of the pole dancing club. Neither should an ardent environmentalist be forced to attend a talk given by a climate change skeptic.
But what about those who decide to engage with the other side? Should a small group of protesters deprive a willing audience of the ability to hear and (more importantly) challenge controversial ideas? Absolutely not.
The assertion that there’s a right to speak but not to be heard by anyone is ridiculous when examined more closely. Take the journalist who is allowed to write criticisms of public officials, but not publish those articles in venues where they might be read by others, or a religious leader who is only allowed to preach where no one else can hear him. In both cases, the individuals are speaking, but no person would say that they are able to exercise “free speech.” Free speech requires a right to be heard by those willing to listen.
While university officials, like President Pollack, might espouse the virtues of civil discourse, it is clear that others on campus do not. Protesters now cry out that a speaker has “the right to speak, but not to be heard.” By their logic, a government that mandated static be played over anything it disagreed with would be respecting the right to speech. Dissidents would be permitted to speak, just not permitted to be heard.
Those who disagree with Coulter (or any speaker on campus, for that matter) should have the right to not attend her event. They should be able to peacefully protest outside. But they should not hold a “heckler’s veto” over those who wish to engage with her ideas.
