Fire with Fire

Quick question: you believe in freedom of expression, right? Yeah, that's what I thought. You do.

You are, of course, committed to liberal democratic ideals — liberal in the classical sense of the word, naturally. You imbibed them with every page of that government-approved American history textbook you read in high school. You metaphorically hold them to your heart during the national anthem. You firmly believe that you have the God-given right to say whatever's on your mind, offensive as it may be to the government, the majority, common decency or public taste. You weren't out there protesting Peter Singer's professorship in front of Nassau Hall. You have no qualms about expressing your lack of admiration for the University of Pennsylvania's basketball team or its academic prestige in the crassest of terms.

So why, why in the world, are you so damn upset about the publication of David Horowitz's ad discouraging reparations for slavery with racist arguments? For the record: those who know me well will not hesitate to describe me as a full-blown, hummus-eating, low-emission-vehicle-owning, Bob-Dylan-idolizing, bleeding-heart liberal. Unsurprisingly, I think that Horowitz is evil. But that's not the point.

The point is that, if we are afraid to let evil say its piece, we must have a very poor opinion of good. If your ideals are so shaky, so unappealing that you think mere words can tarnish them and destroy their power — well, my friend, perhaps you should look into purchasing a new set. Our goal should not be to keep the forces of evil from putting in their two cents. It should be to put in two cents of our own, maybe four or five cents, even, if the situation should merit such an expenditure.

If you want to win a war of ideas, you have to fight a war of ideas — not a war of censorship and repression. I can imagine, with hope, the day when race is no longer an issue in America. But will it be a non-issue because Americans have rejected racist arguments or simply because they've never heard or read them? In the latter case, when racist arguments lose out through non-exposure, no one will have won the war of ideas. One subversive racist demagogue could undermine the foundations of that utopia. If, on the other hand, racism becomes a non-issue because the anti-racist argument defeats the racist argument in open debate, the war of ideas will have been won.

Let us not forget, moreover, that free and open expression of ideas is not only necessary for true attitudinal change. It is also fundamental to the operation of our democracy and, some would say, to the enjoyment of basic human rights in America. I think we all agreed on this a couple hundred years ago, and we seem to keep affirming it by signing various international conventions on human rights. However, in light of the Horowitz debate, I'm beginning to think we should change the First Amendment to read, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except when people really don't like what the speakers and writers have to say."

Was the 'Prince' wrong to publish Horowitz's ad? No more wrong than it would be to publish an ad urging awareness of Black History Month. Conversely, refusing to print Horowitz's ad on the basis of its content would be just as wrong as refusing to print a Black History Month ad. A tyranny is a tyranny —whether it is a tyranny of The Right or a tyranny of The Wrong. And tyrannies have a habit of getting overthrown. Melissa Waage '01 is a politics major from Johnson City, TN. She can be reached at mrwaage@princeton.edu.