Pipe Dream has been criticized for its positions on freedom of speech in the past ‘ despite its constancy.
When students and faculty declared an exhibit on display at the University Art Museum offensive and demanded that it be taken down, the editorial staff called for it to stay. Freedom of speech, we said, is essential on a campus where the intellectual community relied on an open exchange of ideas to inspire dialogue.
We still believe it.
And when Azuka Nzegwu, a graduate student here, was brought up on judicial charges after posting satire aimed at the same exhibit, we were in her corner of the ring. Why should the University limit her freedom of expression when they had no plans to limit their own? We were perplexed.
We still are.
And though we were slightly confused by the University’s decision to accept money from a Franklin Graham-hosted evangelical festival over the summer, Pipe Dream said there was still no basis to bar him from campus. His views ‘ and those of his followers ‘ were expressed here, and those who felt the need to protest did so peacefully and effectively. They raised questions that made those attending the festival stop and engage in dialogue about those opposing views.
And so it was unusual to see protesters and proponents exchanging ideas ‘ but it was a welcome sight.
All we ask for is constancy, so it may not come as a surprise when we say that we might not agree with Daniel Pipes, Ph.D., but we will defend the Binghamton Review’s right to host him.
Pipes, who will be presenting a speech entitled ‘Vanquishing the Islamist Enemy’ on campus today, is known for his opposition of radical Islam and his support of Israel.
Posters across campus for the event have been graffitied with words like ‘racist’ and ’embarrassing’ ‘ a fact that the Review has not shied away from pointing out in their own issue this month. It seems that as much as certain groups on campus may disapprove of Pipes’ message, their opposition is fueling interest in his visit.
(So much for disapproval.)
Columbia University’s President Lee Bollinger may have redacted his invitation with his unflattering introductory statements to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech in September, but the Review’s invitation (we can only assume) is in this case coupled with admiration for Pipes’ work.
And more power to them! Student groups scramble to get stimulating guests, and if the Review was able to acquire a speaker who has motivated so many other students to care about him and his message, we offer our congratulations. But the same right the Review has to invite Pipes must be afforded to these groups to protest his arrival.
Freedom of speech is not restricted to speech that every student on campus agrees with, just as (in the words of the nearly completely unknown former U.S. Vice President Hubert Humphrey) ‘the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.’