Y
ou, sir, are killing us!”
shouted
one
of
the
students,
as
fellow
protesters flashed signs accusing
Charles Murray of being a white
supremacist
and
a
fascist. One went even
further, pointing at
Murray and accusing
him of “denying her
existence”
since
she is a woman of
color in science. The
protesters had been
driven
to
disrupt
Murray
in
large
part
because
of
his book “The Bell
Curve,” which drew
correlations between race and
IQ and has rightly inspired a lot
of suspicion among academics.
Yet, to suggest Murray, who
supports same-sex marriage and
is an openly anti-Trump member
of the Republican Party, is part
and parcel of the white nativist
movement is beyond a stretch — it
is a lie.
The disruption of Murray’s
speech
at
the
University
of
Michigan
represented
a
worrying
national
trend
—
activists
erroneously
labeling
the speech of a controversial
speaker as hateful to prevent a
free exchange of ideas. These
mischaracterizations harm the
very causes activists seek to
bring attention to, by driving
away legions of supporters from
moderate students like myself.
If they must disrupt speech,
they would be wiser to target
the outspokenly racist, sexist or
“alt-right” ideologues who visit
college campuses.
Murray is but one example
of a mislabeled speaker — radio
host Ben Shapiro, psychologist
Jordan Peterson or even Claire
Gastañaga, executive director
of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Virginia, have been
grouped
together
with
the
genuinely incendiary like Milo
Yiannopoulos, or worse, self-
proclaimed white nationalists
like Richard Spencer. All have
had their speeches canceled
or disrupted despite their only
shared belief being their support
for absolute freedom of speech.
Claire
Gastañaga
was
even
prevented from speaking at an
event titled “Students and the
First Amendment” when the
ACLU announced its defense of
the right for “alt-right” speakers
to march in Charlottesville, Va.
Perhaps
if
the
anger and labels were
reserved
for
neo-
Nazis
like
Richard
Spencer, the public
would
sympathize
more
with
the
goal
of
ridding
these
ideas
from
our
communities.
Unfortunately,
the
current
state
of
activism leaves many
Americans
to
fear
that
campuses
have
become
completely intolerant of opposing
ideas.
After
an
Intelligence
Squared debate at Yale University,
66 percent of the audience agreed
with the view that free speech is
being threatened on campus, a 17
percent increase from the tally at
the start of the debate.
According to a Pew Research
poll, four in 10 millennials believe
the government should be able
to prevent people from making
statements that are offensive to
minority groups, so I shudder
at the thought of my generation
becoming
future
legislators
who take cues from the activist
movement.
They
would
be
working on a slippery slope — how
can you truly define offensive
speech
if
every
individual’s
tolerance level to verbal abuse
differs? While I can understand
their sympathy for those hurt
by racist speech, I am more
skeptical of the nebulously defined
microaggression that could nudge
its way into such legislation;
policing this type of language
would be virtually impossible due
to the limitless ways one can claim
they were targeted.
It is important to understand
the divide in reasoning that some
activists seem to have compared
to the general public, which
widely
condemns
restrictions
on hate speech. Some who seek
to restrict speech apparently
justify their belief with the notion
that once words are perceived
to be racist, they are justified
in restricting it because these
words can amount to mental
and physical violence; in other
words, it seems that those who
defend free speech are condoning
violence toward others. Since
the police and administration
aren’t preventing these attacks,
it appears that some activists
see it as their duty to disrupt
supporters
of
free
speech,
sometimes resorting to tangible
physical violence.
This
reasoning
is
flawed.
Most students who listen to
“controversial”
speakers
are
interested
in
an
intellectual
exchange of ideas or a chance to
sit in and attempt to understand
the ideas of the other side. Yet, at
some universities, these curious
listeners have had to dodge the
fists of radical protesters who
equate dialogue or interest in the
other side with the same vigor as
a line of marching Nazis. Their
other equally unjustifiable tactics:
blocking
entrances,
seizing
microphones
and
mocking
listeners leads to an atmosphere
of fear on campus — but not to
their intended targets. Ordinary
students are the ones who feel
the heat — at Yale University, 42
percent of students and 71 percent
of conservative students report
that they feel uncomfortable
giving their opinion on politics.
This fear makes it harder for
students to grasp onto their own
unique set of political values, for
they worry about straying too far
from the party line on campus.
At
the
University
of
Michigan,
conservatives
have
felt
this
tension
in
their
discussions,
first-
year
seminars
and
clubs.
After
President
Donald
Trump’s election, hundreds
of community members on
campus signed a petition in
response to an open letter by
a student at the University,
affirming that they, too, felt
unwelcome on campus. We
should ensure our campus
remains welcoming of these
students, and stand up to
unwarranted
claims
that
associates them or the speakers
they show up to listen to
with the same anger directed
toward fringe racist elements
in our society.
C
harles
Murray
—
controversial
social
scientist — delivered
a speech on campus Oct. 11,
despite somewhat significant
protest. This, once again,
raises two questions we seem
incapable of escaping for the
foreseeable political future:
What are the limits of free
speech, especially on college
campuses? And who and what
deserves to be protested?
To immediately undermine
myself, I don’t think free
versus censored speech in a
traditional sense is actually
the
interesting
question.
Murray is allowed to speak on
this public university campus,
whether or not the University
of
Michigan’s
chapter
of
College Republicans invite
or sponsor him. What we
as students, and many of
us as activists, seem to be
concerned
with,
though,
is whether one should try
to silence someone who, at
best, walks the line between
academic science and racism.
There is a distinction — and
a majority of college students
agree with me — between
intentionally offensive rhetoric
(such
as
racial
slurs)
and
legitimate academic discourse,
even over contentious topics. My
resistance to protests designed to
silence one’s opposition applies
only to this sort of dialogue,
where our primary question
can safely be “What best checks
speech we disagree with?” In
this case, I think the answer is
often counterspeech, not protest.
One of the forces keeping
Murray’s ideas alive well past
their expiration date is the
allure of dangerous or forbidden
ideas. I presume we’ve all met at
least one person convinced that
feminism is a grand conspiracy
against men or that trans rights
are just the result of wild liberal
overreach. The same principle
applies here: Some faction of
people will believe individuals
protest Murray’s ideas because
they undermine the liberal lie,
not because they’re relics from a
worse part of our history.
A
response
designed
to
produce converts, then, meets
the ideas of Murray and others
like him directly. There is a
definite place for general protest
and I want to reiterate that this is
not a condemnation of those who
prefer that method; I only want
to argue that when people frame
themselves as trying to bring up
opposing arguments in a world
of political correctness, meeting
one idea with another will be
more effective than trying to
drown them out.
Physical protections of the
University
and
University
security aside, there are few
places as well structured for
counterspeech as a university.
There were several professors
among
those
protesting
Murray; would none of them
have been willing to make a
counterpresentation, debunking
Murray’s claim or defending an
alternative philosophy? What
about
our
student
activists,
who have proven themselves in
the past to be quite persuasive?
A parallel speech would offer
interested parties the critical
opportunity to show up for,
rather than against, something.
It’s impossible to guarantee
complete
safety.
One
group
divided, though, seems obviously
more apt to dissolve into ugliness
than two groups looking to be
swayed. Each speech’s audience,
thus, would be united in their
demand
from
the
speaker:
Persuade me that you’re right,
whether it’s for the first time or
the fortieth time.
Protest
asks
whether
certain ideas are “permitted”;
counterspeech asks what ideas
are more persuasive. The ability
to mobilize is important, but —
and I think this is fairly universal
— the end goal is persuasion. Our
highly monitored — especially
in public spaces — environment
here, along with the ideal of
academic freedom, creates a
safe space for dangerous ideas.
What do we have to gain from
forfeiting a chance to convert
rather than contain?
Anger in response to people
like Charles Murray is justified,
and there are times when
containment is the only rational
course of action. Enabled here
as we are to act politically,
however, that anger might more
effectively be directed toward
winning the conflict of ideas. I
don’t think Murray’s claims are
hard to succeed against, but one
cannot win a debate without
first having one. If we are right,
what ideological threat does a
debate pose?
The effectiveness of otherwise
feebly constructed arguments
comes from their framing. As
long as one gives their opposition
grounds to claim that they are
being silenced for speaking the
uncomfortable truth, not for
espousing bankrupt ideology,
they cede their strongest tool
for argument. In the context of
a university, winning debates
will be more effective than
preventing them.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 24, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Speech and counterspeech
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
Unjust disruption
LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Luke Jacobs can be reached at
lejacobs@umich.edu.
NATALIE BROWN | NATALIE CAN BE REACHED AT NGBROWN@UMICH.EDU
Mugging at the gym
COREY DULIN | COLUMN
I
can’t just get up and go to
the gym — it’s a process.
I
need
to
get
there
physically and mentally. The
Intramural
Sports
Building is an easy
enough
walk,
but
there is a ton of
mental preparation
that
takes
place
before
anyone
swipes my Mcard.
Anytime I go to the
IM building, I put
myself in a mood. I
replay Cardi B and
DMX in my head to
get to a place where
I feel slightly less awkward and
misplaced entering the gym.
I, like many other people,
have a mug when I go to the
gym. I try to make myself look
tough, to look like someone you
don’t want to mess with.
My gym mug is completely
different from any other facial
expressions I make. People
have a hard time believing
that I can drive, so I’m used
to trying to make myself seem
less like a wide-eyed kid and
more like an actual adult. I
walk around campus with a
straight face and tunnel vision,
but when I go to the gym I take
the look a bit farther.
Picture me, a 5-foot-4-inch
skinny
teenager,
deadpan
with a slight furrow in my
brows. This creates a look
meant to intimidate, but at its
core is my sad attempt to look
threatening, a way to show I
know what I’m doing, even
though I don’t. Anytime I
step into a gym I mainly focus
on making sure I don’t do
something worth putting in a
gym fail compilation.
I think that most people do
some version of this when they go
to a gym; I believe only a minority
of
society
feels
completely
comfortable and confident every
time they walk into a building and
see weights, treadmills and other
exercise equipment.
Those Planet Fitness
commercials get it —
“gymtimidation”
is
real and most people
suffer from some form
of it. I can’t help but
constantly worry at
the gym. I wonder if
I’m doing the exercise
I found on YouTube
correctly.
I
wonder
if this exercise looks
stupid
or
weird.
I
wonder if I can lift this
weight without a spotter and if I
couldn’t, I wonder how loud and
how embarrassing it would be if it
fell. Most of all, I wonder if anyone
caught on to the game of pretend I
play and who will be the first to call
me out.
If I’m going to get called
out anywhere, it’s going to
happen in the weight room.
There I’m an easy target: I
stick out because the space is
dominated by guys and I look
like I have no business there.
I didn’t come with a weight
belt and I’m not a muscular
person. The weight rooms
are my least favorite area of
the gym and the whole place
makes
me
uncomfortable.
They have so many mirrors;
they force you to confront
yourself.
You
can’t
stare
blindly ahead like you would
on a stationary bike or a
treadmill, you have to squat
and stare at your reflection.
I don’t want to stare at
myself but I also don’t want
to be forced to look at other
people. That’s why going to the
gym after 4 p.m. is one of my
nightmares; I can’t function
during peak time. After 4 p.m.,
using a machine becomes a
challenge because there are
so many people. Also, as more
people lay claim to machines,
grunt and pace around, the
more insecure I get.
I know that this whole idea
of mugging at the gym and the
awkwardness and insecurity
that comes with it is silly — I
shouldn’t feel a need to justify
my presence by making a
face; I shouldn’t pretend like
I belong. However, I do, and
I don’t just do it when I go to
the gym.
We all act a certain way to
try to look a certain way to
fit situations in life. Mostly,
because we want acceptance
or maybe because of imposter
syndrome.
But
regardless,
we shouldn’t ever have these
concerns. I should walk into
places and situations without
so much concern about how I
fit in and whether I stick out.
I need to get more comfortable
taking
up
space
and
get
over deciding if I belong
somewhere. My scrawny arms
can use the bench press, I can
use the squat rack — I don’t
need to explain myself. Just
like I don’t need to explain
myself or justify my presence
in any other situation I find
myself in.
Corey Dulin can be reached at
cydulin@umich.edu.
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
LUKE
JACOBS
I shouldn’t feel
a need to justify
my presence by
making a face; I
shouldn’t pretend
like I belong.
COREY
DULIN
Our primary
question should be
“What best checks
the speech we
disagree with?”
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.