Printed: 6/6/08
I’m an avid quote collector, and ran across a couple the other day that relate so strikingly to the Furman presidential visit I had to share them before the associated furor fades entirely from memory.
The first, from Winston Churchill, scarcely shows its age: “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like – but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
The second, from former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, adds a challenge: “Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that Burger used the word “freedom” instead of “obligation.” The distinction reminded me of something my husband’s late grandfather – a Baptist minister and former college president – once told me with great conviction.
He was well into his 80s when I met him, but as interested in the news of the day as the brand-new editorial writer who hung on his words. We had wonderful conversations about life and the world. What I remember most about them, and him, was his willingness to hear and be changed by ideas other than his own.
I asked him once how he managed that, since the tendency in advancing age is to head the other direction. (That I dared pose such a question is a tribute to his forbearance).
He told me it was a choice he made long ago. The point, he said, is what you’re after. A person who argues more than he listens in a debate is defending a position, not seeking the truth. How much better to seek the truth.
I have no doubt the Furman faculty who launched the great debate over Bush’s visit did so in the name of truth. Their “we object” letter spoke of the “spirit of open and critical review,” and the ideals our country stands for, and their “civic responsibility to speak out” when those ideals are violated. Nowhere did it say the president should not come to Furman.
But their actions said it quite clearly, and I think that’s why the public reaction was so vitriolic.
This was not a case, as some professors complained in The Greenville News, of a narrow-minded public refusing to engage in substantive debate. People know criticism of government is the “hallmark of a free democracy.” That’s civics 101.
I imagine most folks out there beyond Furman’s campus would agree, unequivocally, that the “we object” cosigners have every right to speak their piece – with the understanding that the reverse is also true.
The same right extends to the president. And that is where the faculty dissidents broke faith with Furman’s vaulted ideals. They left no doubt that the opportunity to hear George W. Bush’s viewpoint was a freedom they had no intention of embracing.
Professors wore armbands to the commencement in “silent protest.” They voted 81-79 to “admonish” President David Shi for failing to consult them before inviting Bush to speak. And 31 sought “conscientious objector” status so they could skip the ceremony entirely.
I wonder if they thought once about the message that sent. Thirty-one professors – faculty in a liberal arts university devoted to “freedom of inquiry in the quest for truth” – could not even sit for 40 minutes in the presence of someone with whom they disagreed.
When did so many Furman faculty abandon their obligation to listen?
Yes, obligation. I disagree with Burger. What do Furman professors teach their students every day? To be “open to new ideas, different ways of thinking and other opinions,” student body president Christina Henderson wrote in The (Furman) Paladin.
To listen. Attending that commencement speech wasn’t about supporting or not supporting the Iraq war or global warming or timber lobbyists or even the graduating class of 2008. It wasn’t about respecting the office of the presidency.
It was about the free exchange of ideas. About valuing free speech so highly that you’ll grant it to someone whose views and actions you despise. About that oh-so-antiquated quote from Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Most important, it’s about whether the faculty of a great university can find the discipline to listen as well as speak.
