On The Justice Roosting Of Chickens Analysis

Even at the most prestigious American Universities, a war currently wages. Around Halloween each year, there is often a debate on college campuses across the United States as to whether students should be allowed to wear costumes that could be deemed stereotypical or offensive. Just this past month a prestigious Yale lecturer, Erika Christakis, found herself at the center of a campuswide upheaval after she sent an email urging a dialogue on the controversy. Instead of inspiring that dialogue, Christakis found herself the target of an endless barrage of protests and backlash that eventually ended in her resignation from the college. The following is an excerpt from the email Christakis sent to the students of Yale’s Silliman:
“I wonder, and

I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? . . . If you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.” (Stack)
This is not an isolated incident. Students across the nation are striving to create a so called ‘progressive’ environment through the silencing of those they disagree with. There is no desire to create a discussion or exchange ideas, rather anything offensive must be silenced and shunned. Again we find ourselves, in this great American debate, asking where the limits of free speech really are. If the works of Mill, King, and Isserman among others, have taught us anything however, it is that unlimited freedom of speech and the contrast of ideas (no matter how offensive) is the key to progressivism and the betterment of our society. Without this dialogue that free speech inspires, we cannot hope to move forward.
To understand the dialogue on freedom of speech in today’s world, we must first understand its origin and implications in society today. Only slightly more than two centuries ago, our founding fathers sought to create a nation forged under the ideals of freedom and liberty. The absolute first of these ideals established in the United States Bill of Rights was the protection and assurance of free speech. It is an American tradition and a staple of the free society we live in today. Our founding fathers even note that freedom of speech is integral in creating a dialogue with the oppressor in order to create more just modes of affairs. In the first Continental Congress’ Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, it states that freedom of speech should be used as a dialogue to challenge oppressors rather than silence them (United States 1). This is the spirit of free speech that was intended when it was assured to its people.
The intended use of the Amendment of the Bill of Rights is not necessary to debate. Our forefathers have given us that freedom of speech should uphold the rights of the underrepresented groups and serve to create dialogue. This great ideal has not changed since it was originally written. Kathleen M. Sullivan, a notable attorney and graduate of the Harvard Law school, notes that, “Free Speech as equality embraces first an antidiscrimination principle: in upholding the speech rights of anarchists, syndicalists, communists, civil rights marchers . . . the Court protects members of an ideological minority ” (Sullivan 147). Freedom of speech in a Constitutional sense is and should remain the primary understanding of free speech.
In today’s society, we experience almost complete freedom of speech and press.

Although there are some limits, the citizens of this country can write whatever they please without fear of persecution by the government. This is an integral part of the society that we live in today, however this does not mean they are not subject to attack and scrutiny from the voices of others. Take for example the controversy surrounding Ward Churchill and his work On the Justice Roosting of Chickens. In the book, Churchill likened those who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 to little Eichmanns, technocrats of an empire (Ward). His work was widely published and was in no way censored, yet this did not save him from an endless barrage of scrutiny from all ends of the political and social spectrum. He was invited onto Fox News’ The Kelly File where they debated the implications of his writing and gave him a chance to defend himself. This is the very spirit of dialogue that we must strive to inspire. Freedom of speech cannot be used only to protect the opinions and ideals of only the ‘just’. Absolute freedom of speech must be extended to all ideological minorities regardless of moral standing. Instead of silencing those we disagree with, we must seek change their ideas so that society can move forward

progressively.
When debating the limits of free speech one argument often presented is the idea that a government must always act on the will of its people in the sense that if the people desire a limit on freedom of speech, it must be so. This is false.
Often it is stated that in a truly American democracy, a government must act on the will of the people and if the people desire that there has to be a limit on free speech, the government must make it so. So should a government act on the will of its people or the principles it was founded on? In Barendt’s Freedom of Speech he argues,
In particular, an examination of the theories underlying the free speech principle may suggest solutions to problems which confront both legislatures and courts. Of course governments may act largely in response to public pressure, but arguments of principle are often influential in the course of parliamentary debate and should be taken into account by legislators. (Barendt 2)
Barendt argues that while governments, in some degree, must act upon the will of the people and the pressure that goes along with it, legislatures should reflect principle into the laws that they write. So in changing the founding ideals of freedom of speech, we destroy the principle and success this country was founded upon.
Progressivism seems to be the goal of those who currently seek to stifle free speech on campuses across the country. There is a goal to push toward a more accepting social environment and move past injustices like racism or the marginalization of certain groups that have plagued humanity for an eternity. This is both a noble and necessary cause however, there is a right and wrong way to go about it. What we cannot do is silence and stifle opinions those whom we disagree with as that is counterproductive to the very cause. Instead, dialogue must be created between those who disagree so that eventually an agreement or even reversal of ideas can be made and society can advance.
Discussion, not censorship is the key to progressivism. As John Stuart Mill said in his work On Liberty, “If an opinion-even a true one- is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not as a living truth” (Introduction 73). Without constantly questioning and discussing the things we hold as truths in our society, they become nothing more than falsehoods. It is important that even the most offensive and insensitive subjects are routinely and thoroughly discussed or we risk them becoming truths.
Should society err toward the side of complete and total freedom of speech or a limit thereof? Maurice Isserman, a professor at Hamilton college suggests, “when it comes to a judgement call between extending too much free speech or guaranteeing too little, the historical record suggest that we should err on the side of excess” (Introduction 70).
History has absolutely proven that censorship and stifling of opinions never works. Only through expression can we hope to move forward as a society. In his day, Martin Luther was extremely radical and offensive to many however few can now imagine a world without his teachings. He drove to upheave the status quo and challenge the ideas prevalent at the time. The great Martin Luther King, perhaps not coincidentally was considered a radical and extremist. King states in his work Letters from Birmingham Jail that “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (Introduction 80). Many opposed the tactics used by King and the Civil Rights Activists and many at the time would consider a statement like that offensive. Despite this, King’s actions today are seen as moral and justified, not because his opinions were stifled and censored but because his actions created a meaningful and eventually successful dialogue on equality.
Now let us take a look back to Yale: a distinguished lecturer resigned after extreme backlash from merely encouraging free speech. The school had ought to remind its students as well as those across the country that complete free speech is not only a hallmark of American liberty but is also the key to achieving the progressivism they so desire. There are no easy route to the complex and daunting problems that plague our society today. The only way to confront these problems is through dialogue and the changing, not silencing, of minds. Do not let progress stagnate in its very name. Fight for the right to offend and the right to discuss those very offensive ideas. In the name of this great country, fight.