Letters to the Editor: Nov. 25, 2009

On Darwish and freedom of speech

Regarding “Egyptian activist’s invitation withdrawn” (Thursday, Nov. 18, 2009):

A lot of criticism has surrounded the cancellation of the Nonie Darwish lecture. Many have pointed out that the cancellation reflects a violation of the freedom of speech. Many people that I have spoken to on campus describe this as yet another example of the clash between faith and freedom.

Freedom of speech, as I understand it, is the right of a person to express his or her own opinion, and I would certainly agree that everyone is entitled to this fundamental freedom. However, we should not fail to see that once one has expressed one’s opinion (and hence exercised his or her right to the freedom of speech), that person is, at least in part, responsible for the results that originate from him/her having expressed that opinion. Hence, while one is certainly entitled to the freedom of speech, one must realize he is also responsible for what he has said. For instance, at a party I certainly have the right t0 tell my host how ugly and stupid he is, and if I indeed do so, I must be prepared to accept the fact that I am at least partially responsible for him kicking me out. (This should not be taken to mean that my host can do anything to me: His actions are restrained by several moral, ethical and legal dimensions.)

My point here is that although individuals like Nonie Darwish have the right to express their opinions on Islam or any other religion, they and others who express such views must accept the fact that Muslims have the right to denounce and express negative opinions about them. It is, of course, the latter’s freedom of speech. To argue that Muslim protests over her visit restrict freedom of speech is to ignore the former’s entitlement to such freedoms. Surely, none of the proponents of free speech are against the notion that both parties must be granted comparable freedoms!

Also, the right to the freedom of speech must be understood in the broader contexts of other freedoms and rights. In other words, the freedom of speech of one person is constrained by the rights that other people possess. Consider, for instance, that I am the host and I know that if I invite you, you will express your anti-Christian views (which is part of your freedom of speech) at the party. I also know that this view may offend my evangelical Christian friends at the party. Now, as the host, I can certainly have the right to not invite you, and if I indeed do not invite you, I may have prevented you from expressing your opinion, but it is difficult to argue that what I did was wrong. Undeniably, I acted within my own rights. This clearly demonstrates that in certain contexts, other rights are more important than the freedom of speech, and tradeoffs in favor of these other rights have to be made.

Tigers for Israel, like the host in my example, were certainly within their rights to cancel their sponsorship on the grounds of the broader implications of this speech on the campus community. In other words, like the host, they certainly have the right to allow only those whose views are compatible with theirs to speak on their platform. (However, they do not have the right to prevent organizations from voicing their opinions.) To rephrase myself, while individuals may have the right to the freedom of speech, organizations and other individuals certainly have the right to refrain from promoting or supporting those opinions.

However, I understand that the case is more complicated than I have made it out to be. In this case it is not about an invitation not being extended, it is about a previously extended invitation being cancelled. Certainly, it is important to factor in that point in our critique of the whole affair.

My point in this fairly long letter has not been to argue whether the cancellation of the lecture was right or wrong. That would be a very ambitious target! My only point in writing was to argue that the freedom of speech must be understood in the broader context and not just confined to narrow and somewhat impractical realms.

Ahsan Barkatullah ’12

Rhodes article lacks inspiration

Regarding “Princeton trails peers in Rhodes race” (Thursday, Nov. 24, 2009):

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Though I very much appreciated the first of the two recent articles on the Rhodes Scholarship recipients, Nov. 24’s article rubbed me the wrong way. I acknowledge that the process by which a Rhodes Scholar is selected is very competitive, but the manner in which The Daily Princetonian covered it made it seem little more than any old sporting event, charting statistics with bar graphs and using words like “race” and “performance” to describe an academic vetting. This topic would have been far better covered if the writers at The Daily Princetonian continued in the vein of Nov. 23’s article, whose portrait of Henry Barmeier ’10 was both informative and inspirational. Covering Rhodes Scholars such as Henry as if they were little more than racehorses rather than some of the greatest students of our time does a disservice to them and to the Rhodes Scholarship program.

Nathan Mathabane ’13