Editor’s note: This commentary is by Stephen Groff, who grew up in Warren and has spent the last 30 years working on sustainable development issues around the world. He is an economist and vice president of the Asian Development Bank in Manila, Philippines. The views expressed in this commentary are his and do not necessarily reflect ADB policy. He is on Facebook and Twitter @spgroff.
[A]s we sit down this Sunday to watch the Super Bowl, treasure your right to root freely for either New England or Philadelphia as other forms of free expression in our country are under attack. Whether this takes the form of controversy around NFL protests, students blocking provocative speakers on college campuses or a penchant in the White House for labeling bad press as “fake news” and calling for stronger libel laws, somehow our collective tolerance for opinions with which we don’t agree has waned.
Not since the antiwar protests of the 1960s and ‘70s have we seen such cacophony around the First Amendment. From the White House and the turfs of the NFL to the streets of Charlottesville and the halls of universities across the country, many debates turn on the issue of free speech. Once deconstructed to their essence, the boundaries between traditional “liberal” and “conservative” views – unlike protests in the ‘60s and ‘70s – seem more blurred with both focused on the privilege and limits of free speech, rather than arguments around such speech as a right enshrined in the First Amendment.
Let’s examine two of these controversies: the NFL’s “take a knee” protests and campus revolts against conservative speakers.
The first touchstone is the NFL protests that began in 2016 when then San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started kneeling during the national anthem in objection to police brutality and racial inequality. While creating a stir during the 2016 NFL season, coverage seemed to decline as the 2017 season opened. But last September, at a rally in Huntsville, Alabama, President Donald Trump revived the controversy in a single sentence: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired’.” Vice President Mike Pence further stoked the debate by walking out of an Indianapolis Colts game a month later. What had been a relatively small protest action was suddenly thrust onto center stage of our culture wars.
As with many such issues, emotions burn on both sides. Supporters say that players have the right to call attention to the issues of racial inequality and police brutality while opponents decry the action as unpatriotic and disrespectful of our flag and military. Supporters respond by saying that no disrespect of the military or flag is intended, rather it is an expression of free speech protected under the Bill of Rights.
The second touchstone is the current wave of campus speaker protests. College demonstrations have a long legacy across our country, ranging from the civil rights movement in the ‘50s and ‘60s to anti-war protests of the ‘60s and ‘70s to the anti-apartheid rallies of the ‘80s. A common thread running through these demonstrations were the principles of freedom and choice – whether that be the rights of minorities in the U.S., the right of self-determination for people in Vietnam or the rights of a majority of South Africans. In this sense, idealistic college students have fought for the rights of all people for decades.
Despite this rich history, last year – as widely covered in the media – student groups at Middlebury College successfully shut down a speaking engagement by the conservative political scientist Charles Murray. Similar protests have occurred at colleges and universities across the country with “controversial” (and usually conservative) speakers being either shut down, canceled or disinvited. While research suggests that participants in these protests are a rather small minority, their actions have an outsized impact on what is considered “politically correct” on campuses, resulting in significant self-censorship by fellow students. And thus, college campuses – those bastions of free speech not 50 years ago – risk becoming increasingly intolerant unless illiberal impulses are restrained.
While I don’t have survey data to support such a claim, I suspect that quite a few college students who support protests against campus speakers also support NFL players’ rights to kneel during the national anthem, despite the fact that this action may offend some people. Conversely, I also suspect that some of those outraged by actions that limit free speech on college campuses quietly wish that NFL owners would take President Trump’s advice and fire the “take a knee” protesters. Sadly, neither group seems to recognize this inconsistency nor appreciate how their views can threaten some of the fundamental principles of our democracy.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Constitution provides no exception for speech or actions that we don’t like or that which offends us. Even “hate speech” is protected unless it is “direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative.” No matter how much we may personally disagree with a kneeling NFL player or an academician with controversial views, that person has a right enshrined in our founding documents to express their opinion.
There is also something of a generational (and possibly geographic) divide between our protagonists. While attributed to a variety of statesmen – including Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill – it was the historian Francois Guizot who said in 1875: “If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head.” While Guizot might consider me as one of those without a head, I tire of the my-way-or-the-highway intolerance that has infused discourse across the country and feeds the worst of our illiberal instincts. I may disagree with you but I respect your right to a different opinion, no matter how wrong-headed or offensive I may believe it to be. In fact, evidenced-based debate is usually the best way reveal hucksters or, once in a while, identify common ground.
To my knowledge, shouting, walking out, closing your eyes or covering your ears have never been successful strategies for resolving our differences. Whether it be with a provocative speaker on a college campus or a 250-pound kneeling linebacker, engaging the other side is the only way we ever have. This is important regardless of your age, occupation or political persuasion and I hope all of us (and our representatives in Washington …) will wake up to this reality before it’s too late.
