2008 Woodie Awards
GUEST COLUMN: On free speech
Terry Mahaffey
Issue date: 5/1/08 Section: Opinion
I was disappointed to learn that the administration of this University has once again stifled free expression on our campus with the cancellation of the venerable Dolores Huerta's speaking engagement. The stated reason for the cancellation is astonishing, for it was apparently done under the auspices of protecting students from the infinitesimal possibility of hearing an idea that is contrary to the ideals of the institution of the Catholic Church. While I applaud the University for taking a firm stand on certain issues and communicating a strong set of values, it should not dictate those values by disrupting the exchange of ideas. It is not their right.
Certainly we can all agree that young children must be protected from mature ideas, because their experience with critical thinking is limited, and their ability to reason is weak and unformed. But if young adults are denied exposure to a variety of visual and verbal messages, they will also be denied the opportunity to debate and subsequently choose from among those messages which to discard, and which to internalize. How will reason grow if not exercised? Regrettably, we have again been denied this vital opportunity at UST. Our ability to reason is condemned to a state of atrophy until we leave this place.
I recall the incident of Jonathan Rea's poem "Lusting Chaos" being deemed "objectionable," and therefore censored, from the Laurels magazine several semesters ago. I, too, may have personally found it objectionable. But I will never know, and neither will you, because someone made that decision for us. Personally, I rather enjoy edgy art and literature because it is a snapshot of what exists outside my not-so-edgy life. Diversity of thoughts and ideas breed introspection, and discourse inevitably ensues. If that diversity is removed, the loss is beyond measure. While it may have been true that Rea's poem or Huerta's speech had no value for administrators, it may have had value for me, or for you. Was the poem a masterpiece, or was it rubbish? Was the speech inspirational or trite? Alas, we will never know, and the opportunities they may have presented are gone forever. How tragic. Our beloved University's administration has taken the privilege of deciding what we may read, hear, and by extension, what we are permitted to think and discuss. Is this proper?
Certainly we can all agree that young children must be protected from mature ideas, because their experience with critical thinking is limited, and their ability to reason is weak and unformed. But if young adults are denied exposure to a variety of visual and verbal messages, they will also be denied the opportunity to debate and subsequently choose from among those messages which to discard, and which to internalize. How will reason grow if not exercised? Regrettably, we have again been denied this vital opportunity at UST. Our ability to reason is condemned to a state of atrophy until we leave this place.
I recall the incident of Jonathan Rea's poem "Lusting Chaos" being deemed "objectionable," and therefore censored, from the Laurels magazine several semesters ago. I, too, may have personally found it objectionable. But I will never know, and neither will you, because someone made that decision for us. Personally, I rather enjoy edgy art and literature because it is a snapshot of what exists outside my not-so-edgy life. Diversity of thoughts and ideas breed introspection, and discourse inevitably ensues. If that diversity is removed, the loss is beyond measure. While it may have been true that Rea's poem or Huerta's speech had no value for administrators, it may have had value for me, or for you. Was the poem a masterpiece, or was it rubbish? Was the speech inspirational or trite? Alas, we will never know, and the opportunities they may have presented are gone forever. How tragic. Our beloved University's administration has taken the privilege of deciding what we may read, hear, and by extension, what we are permitted to think and discuss. Is this proper?