“In time
we hate that which we often fear.”
– William Shakespeare
The ACLU tells us
“Censorship, the
suppression of words, images, or ideas that are 'offensive,' happens
whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or
moral values on others.”
There
exists a special kind of censorship that stems from self-motivated
suppression. Individuals who refuse to allow the expression of ideas
to which they object deem themselves “keepers of the gate” of
morality. These censors sit at the head of many groups who believe
they guard the sacred values of their assemblies.
Their
moral compass is set to their own agreed upon interpretation of
offensive behaviors. This steadfast insistence on filtering every
opposing view through a narrow sieve of approval eliminates the
understanding of any valid concession. A view that somehow upsets the
group is simply prohibited.
By
allowing no opposition or thoughtful debate, these censors attempt to
extinguish free thought in favor of their version of the
allowable point of view. They may rule over points of order while
imposing personal standards of germane discourse. In essence, any
policy threat is extinguished because history or tradition prevents
its incubation. What results is predictable – the censors simple
eliminate the need for dialogue.
Why would people put upon
themselves the mantle of sacred gatekeeper? Could it be they fear
that diversity of thought may induce change. After all, for diversity
to be successful, people must be open to different points of view.
Whereas diversity is an action, inclusivity is cultural – a sense
of belonging is a feeling. Kristin Hayden, Chief Partnership Officer
at IGNITE (Center for Biological Diversity) says of diversity …
“It’s not autopilot.
The autopilot is to hang out with people who think like you and look
like you. It’s actually about being present…it takes
intentionality to do things differently.”
Of
course, some people feel the need to gain power through censorship.
For example, governments use propaganda to spin ideas and develop
patriotism, devotion, and support. Other social groups do the same.
These bodies can also attempt to suppress the freedoms of thought and
conscience to mold their singular and preferred identity. For
example, some schools hold that students must recite the Pledge of
Allegiance each morning.
Yet, the Supreme Court has
held that it is just as much a violation of a person's First
Amendment rights for the government to make a student
say something he or she doesn't want to say as it is for the
government to prevent that student from saying what he
or she does not want to say. That dissenting student has a right to
remain silently seated during the pledge.
Lastly, some people find
themselves as censors in a dubious position – they find no logical
reason for the suppression of thoughta they oppose. They cannot
answer with a sensible counter argument. However, in their position
of authority, they restrict the troubling view simply because they
“don't like it.”
Bias has made these people
take a shortcut through the brain. Unable to successfully confront
opposition – opposition in their own social, racial, and gender
groups – they resort to their bias, the very prejudice that made
them blind to error in the first place.
Shouldn't it be imperative
that people really hear everybody’s thoughts (including the
negativity), and then weigh and balance these beliefs?
Have you had surprising
moments of clarity when you realized you were more biased than you’d
thought? No one is immune from bias. Implicit biases are hidden
preferences – so hidden that we are unaware we even have them.
Implicit biases stem from the assumptions, stereotypes, and
unintentional actions we make towards others based on identity labels
like race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or ability.
No matter the reason for
undue censorship, that practice denies free expression and,
eventually, thwarts needed change. Harvey C. Mansfield American
political philosopher. And professor of government at Harvard
University, explains …
“We argue over the
boundaries or limits of what can be said but pass over the importance
of what is said within those bounds. This leaves us with a peculiar
sense of why speech matters: We imply that it's valuable because its
restraint would undermine our freedom, which is a way of avoiding the
question more than of answering it.
“This disinterest in
the value of free speech, sometimes amounting to a refusal to define
it, appears to be rooted in the principles of our liberalism, which
enshrines free speech as one right, perhaps the principal right,
among the rights that deserve protection in a liberal society. To
guard such a right, it seems, one must not specify the value of how
it will normally be used lest by such definition society destroy what
it wants to protect. For by discussing the value of free speech one
would expose less-valued or valueless speech to disdain, or worse,
prohibition.
( Harvey
C. Mansfield. “The Value of Free Speech.” National Affairs.
Spring 2020.)
No comments:
Post a Comment