On Mr. Saper and the First Amendment - Conrad Trimbath

I recently drew inspiration to reply to Jay Saper’s crusade against free expression from my favorite movie, The Big Lebowski. In an early scene, Walter, The Dude’s best friend, counsels The Dude to pursue someone who has trampled on his rights. Walter, borrowing from then-President George H. W. Bush, shouts to The Dude, “We’re talking about unchecked aggression here … I’m talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude.”

Well, I’m drawing a line in the sand. Mr. Saper’s widely-read email to Professor of Economics Peter Matthews and his later piece in the Campus are nothing short of patently offensive, especially for people who regard our First Amendment and liberal education worth fighting for.

Although some may see it otherwise, Saper’s arguments have no merit. The only merit to be found is in his right to make such an argument. When I read Saper’s words, I find solace in Voltaire, who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Yet to acknowledge any merit in Saper’s claims beyond his right to make them would impose a chilling effect on free speech that American society — at a liberal arts school of all places — must do without.

Largely grounded in the thought of John Locke and J. S. Mill, our First Amendment has been subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court for many, many decades. Without plumbing the Court’s history at length, I’ll briefly provide a thought — found in a dissent, after all — for Saper, and those who sympathize with him, to consider. Dissenting in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes, the earlier architect of the “clear and present danger” test, describes the importance of free speech in this way: “time has upset many fighting faiths … the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Unfortunately, Saper believes that taking a couple sociology courses qualifies him — the final, all-knowing arbiter — to muzzle a free exchange in ideas at Middlebury. If Saper really believes in the pursuit of truth, he should encourage ideas he disagrees with to be submitted to the marketplace of ideas. So, when Saper speaks of hoping for a “lively discourse,” don’t be fooled. He means nothing of the sort.

Saper’s arguments are at odds with American values. Our Court, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a case on libel, has announced the general principle that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” If we agree with Saper instead, we should create a new administrative department at the College, headed by Saper, of course, with a title along the lines of “The Department of Thought Police.” George Orwell called this Big Brother, but I’m open to suggestions. Either way, the ultimate goal would be to severely abridge the speech we disagree with, creating a comfortable, self-confirming echo chamber.

When Saper accuses Middlebury College of being committed to “patriarchy and white supremacy,” what he really means is that the College dares to allow space for controversial ideas — God forbid — that some may see as offensive. If Saper believes our Constitution is itself patently false, I then suggest he exhibit the humility of F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote in the Great Gatsby, “It is invariably saddening to look through new eyes at things upon which you have expended your own powers of adjustment.” Perhaps — and I know this is a stretch — we can learn from others’ diverse opinions, whether they are offensive to us or not.

Before I finish, I would be remiss if I didn’t applaud Professor Matthews for the great tact he displayed in addressing Mr. Saper and standing up for the free exchange of ideas. Saper accused the Economics Department of endorsing the lecture he saw as offensive. There is a long list of Supreme Court cases that deal with the danger of an institution’s imprimatur being placed on ideas it disagrees with, but I’ll save you from that. In short, Professor Matthews was correct to tell Mr. Saper there was no such endorsement. Speakers are invited here to present their ideas, not the College’s, and a moment’s thought should make that clear. The College, by inviting speakers, is trying to produce a forum, a marketplace, where ideas can compete to discover truth.

Finally, we are not here, as Saper would have it, to listen to and read only that with which we agree. Rather, we come here to read good books, and we come here to be exposed to new ideas, whether in science, literature, economics, politics, sociology or any number of subjects. We did not come here to be told what to think but to think critically. That is what we call liberal education. If we can’t suffer to hear what we may disagree with, we are not fulfilling the duty that is our charge as intellectually inquiring students seeking a liberal education.