Freedom isn’t free. Sure, and neither is free speech. Some of the costs are those of ire from your allies for giving time to someone whose views you despise, some costs are the time and energy expended in ensuring that those with whom you disagree can express their views. And there are the costs of considering and replying to their views. These kinds of costs are familiar to those with Millian sympathies – those who know only their own side know little of that.
Dennis Praeger at NRO has exacted a new cost for those who defend free speech: being attacked by those for whom you’ve fought for the freedom to speak for not being sincere in supporting free speech. His reason? Because you don’t seem to agree with his views.
While some of the professors who have signed these statements might sincerely believe that the university should honor the non-left value of free speech, one should keep in mind the following caveats.
First, the number of professors, deans, and administrators who have signed these statements is very small. . . .
Second, while no one can know what animates anyone else, it’s a little hard to believe that many of those who did sign are sincere. If they were, why haven’t we heard from them for decades? Shutting out conservatives and conservative ideas is a not new phenomenon.
Third, these statements accomplish nothing of practical value. They are basically feel-good gestures. . . .
If any professors want to do something truly effective, they should form a circle around a hall in which a conservative is scheduled to speak, with each professor holding up a sign identifying themselves as a professor: “I am [name], professor of [department].”
…. But it won’t happen. It won’t because the university is a particularly cowardly place.
Let’s start with the fact that because there are few professors signing the letter in support of free speech, they must not be sincere. Surely this is backwards — it’s because they are few and stand to be on the receiving end of the ire of their colleagues that we know they are sincere.
Second, the familiar no conservatives in the academy line is just dumb here, since those who stand up for free speech and so on in the academy have been doing that since the beginning. That they need to stand up for conservatives is (i) evidence of the problem Prager is talking about, and (ii) shows what wilting violets academic conservatives turn out to be. Ooooh the Marxists can be soooo mean. Prager’s big thought is that because they aren’t conservatives, they can’t seriously be in for protecting conservative speech. But, hey, you’re not supporting free speech unless you’re supporting the rights of those whose views you hold to be deplorable to speak. Otherwise, it’s just self-congratulatory nonsense.
Third, if Prager’s criterion for sincerity is to ‘form a circle’ around folks who are talking on campus, then (a) he’s got a misunderstanding of how most academics spend their time, and (b) he’s forgotten about the prof at Middlebury who got a concussion protecting Charles Murray from an angry mob of student protesters. Yeesh.
The takeaway is that Praeger, because he doesn’t see the academics as on his side can’t see the work they are doing for free speech as anything but insincere.