Clarification

After recent events at Carnegie Mellon University and the ensuing conversation that took place mainly over social media on the importance of freedom of expression, I feel that I need to clarify my (admittedly evolving) point of view on the matter.  I recognize that the readership of this blog is not terribly big, but it's my little stump to stand on, so stand on it I shall.

I'm for free speech, for everyone, everywhere.  I think that the First Amendment outlines arguably the most important safeguards of a free and democratic society - namely the right of the citizenry to think whatever they want regardless of the government's views, and to speak their mind without fear of government reprisal.  Without that, we are but a teetering step away from falling into the pit of tyranny.  So in case anyone who read my posts on facebook and thought the subtext was that I don't like free speech, there you have it.  Not only do I like free speech, I think it is our duty to "speak truth to power" and to constantly have an eye towards keeping in check those forces which would threaten our inalienable rights.  The greatest power that the Founding Fathers granted to Americans of all stripes was our ability to say what we will - it is our words that should ultimately keep our government in check (though frankly, an armed populace isn't a bad insurance policy either - but that's another conversation for another time).

But, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.  I am a firm believer that given the enormous power our right to free speech gives us, we must exercise this right (and all other rights) judiciously.  An obvious example is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire exists, but a less obvious example is restraining oneself from mockery of a public (or especially private) figure that serves no purpose.  We are called to protest that of which we disapprove, but when we are shocking, sensationalist, or offensive simply because we are permitted to be so, I call for restraint.  We have a responsibility to be decent to each other.  We have a responsibility to be understanding, and tolerant of opposing views.  President James Buchanan said "I like the noise of democracy."  I'm inclined to agree with him, but if all of us just shout whatever the hell we want with little or no regard for the appropriateness of our expression whatever our freedom may be, that noise can become overwhelming.

A well-functioning democracy depends upon a well-educated, thoughtful, and communicative citizenry, which fully embraces reasonable public discourse.  That doesn't mean we all have to get along and play nice, I'm not so naive as to expect that.  Part of life is that we'll invariable offend or piss off someone or many someones as we make our way through the world.  Sometimes it will be inadvertent, and sometimes quite on purpose.  Nowhere in the Constitution are we guaranteed a right to freedom from being offended - that is patently incompatible with freedom of expression.  But shouldn't we aspire to comport ourselves even just a little higher than the very base behavior permitted?  If we offend someone, we should apologize, plain and simple.

There seem to be a lot of people who think that apologizing for expressing one's beliefs is tantamount to the vilest form of weakness and cowardice.  I don't get that, frankly.  Fans of Friday Night Lights may recall the wise Tami "Mrs. Coach" Taylor telling Jason Street that "there's no weakness in forgiveness" and if that's true, then there must also be no weakness in asking for forgiveness, right?  I think so.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: to me, freedom of speech means we get to say what we want, and if nobody take issue with it then hooray for us!  But we need to be prepared for people to take issue with what we say, or how we express ourselves, and understand that there are consequences to our expression.  That doesn't necessarily invalidate the expression itself, but if, for instance, you manage to piss off the local leaders of a religion whose followers number over 1 billion people, you must be prepared for them to ask you to apologize for offending them.  So you should.  Do you have to apologize for thinking the way you think?  No.  Should you apologize for the fact that the way you chose to express yourself was offensive to your target and perhaps was an insensitive and ineffective way of communicating your point of view?  That would be the decent thing to do.  And if it so happens that you were just trying to be shocking and obscene and you picked what you consider to be a soft target because you and all your pals don't like it very much, then using free speech as a shield is pretty cowardly in my opinion, no matter how entitled to that protection you may be.

I think what bothered me most about the "Pope Girl" incident was not the fact that this art student (whose seemingly enduring anonymity is actually fairly impressive) made a complete mockery of the Pope and my religion, but the way the University handled the response.  I get it, CMU wants to foster a campus community where free expression is permitted to flower, and an environment developed in which learning can take place at every juncture.  What better intersection than this then, to allow this student her freedom of expression, and then let the whole community learn that there are ways to express ourselves that are appropriate, and ways that are inappropriate (and then there are ways that are actually illegal).  When Bishop Zubik approached the University administration asking for an apology, they could have (and should have) said, "Ok, you're right, this was kind of an inappropriate thing for one of our students to do.   We're for freedom of expression, but maybe we should encourage our students to express themselves in a more sensitive and constructive way.  And we should encourage them to own their mistakes when they make them and try to make amends when necessary."

Instead, the thin maroon line was drawn up, the Bishop was stonewalled, and then this becomes a national press thing (though thankfully it didn't last many news cycles).  In this learning opportunity, what Bishop Zubik was most likely referring to when he expressed that he hoped that the student would "learn an important lesson", the University instead showed that if you express yourself and make someone else mad, you can just dodge the situation and hide behind the Ivory Tower.  And to make matters worse, in what is really the only instance in which I have been less than thrilled with Dr. Cohon's actions, an eventual apology was issued that was brimming with irritation, and it was completely obvious from its tone that whoever wrote it didn't think they should have to - and it didn't make anybody happy.  The Diocese of Pittsburgh felt it was given the most insincere of apologies, and much of the campus community it seems took issue with the fact that the apology was issued at all.  A great learning opportunity wasted.  A chance for Carnegie Mellon to stand up and say, "We're for respectful discourse, taking responsibility for our actions, and trying to educate our students to be good citizens of the world."  The University could have apologized for the way things happened and offered to encourage students to be more discerning in their protest in the future.  The University could have offered to host a public forum in which students' grievances with the Catholic Church could be redressed in a civilized manner (though I suspect that this particular form of protest was without agenda).  But these things did not happen, and that's what made me upset.

Well-educated people of Carnegie Mellon students' and alumni's ilk wield tremendous power in our ability to communicate complex ideas and influence people and organizations.  We will literally shape the future of our world and everyone in it.  But if we're incapable of controlling ourselves and acting with restraint, responsibility, and decency, what hope do we have for everyone else?

TL;DR:  Say what you need to say in as constructive and responsible a manner as you can, and if you still manage to offend someone, own that and take it as an opportunity to affect change through reasonable and rational dialogue.  It's ok to screw up if you're prepared to do something to make it right.  Free speech is great, but you have to be smart about it, and you have to accept the consequences that may come attached to what you say and how you say it.

It's a pretty small world, and we all have to live in it, so we might as well figure out how to live together while embracing opposing viewpoints and methods of expression in a decent, human way.