Voices Of Sanity, And Otherwise, At UVa

Erin O’Connor quotes from an impressive student opinion column that appeared in today’s Cavalier Daily at the University of Virginia. Responding to ridiculous charges that UVa is a “bastion of white supremacy,” Anthony Dick offers the compelling observation that

What the administration really can do to help diffuse racial problems on Grounds is not to pay more attention to the race of its students and faculty, but less…. Until administrators quit their obsession with the racial makeup of their students, the students themselves will never be able to do so.

Read Erin’s post, and the whole column.

Alas, not everything in what is sometimes not so affectionalely known as the “Cavil Daily” is so sane. A case in point is another student column today, “Keep The Dixie Chicks on the Air,” by Alex Rosemblat. Student Rosemblat is alarmed over the torrent of criticism launced against the Chicks in response to lead singer Natalie Maines’ comment in London last week that “we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”

It seems that a significant number of their erstwhile fans were angry that, as the San Antonio Express-News put it, “Dixie Chick Lays An Egg.” The article pointed out that several San Antonio radio stations had pulled the Chicks off the air, a boycott that flared up all across the South and elsewhere. An online petition against them is rapidly gaining signatures.

To Student Rosemblat, these criticisms amount to a virtual — or perhaps an actual — violation of the First Amendment. He doesn’t seem to realize that vigorous criticism, including the right not to listen, is an integral part of First Amendment freedom.

Many Americans pride themselves on the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, in particular, the freedom of speech. Americans often declare their country to be “free,” a place where they can say anything they want, within the boundaries of laws protecting others. Lately, however, in light of the possible impending war against Iraq, some U.S. citizens have been less than open to hearing what their countrymen have to say about the issues related to a potential war. This was most vividly demonstrated last week when country radio stations across the nation boycotted playing any songs by the country music trio, the Dixie Chicks.

Rosemblat asserts that the boycott against the Chicks “is just one instance of citizens targeting those who harbor anti-war sentiments, which appears to be a growing occurrence in the nation.” “Targeted?” Really? If we’ve been undergoing a wave of repression, I must have missed it. I’ve been under the impression that Janeane Garafolo, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, and other international scholars among the entertainers are still on the loose.

But Rosemblat is quite worried.

Events such as the boycott of Dixie Chicks influence people to become more apprehensive toward expressing their views. This in turn cuts into the de facto status of our freedom of speech. For instance, perhaps I should fear a reprisal against myself or my work because the views in this column may be construed as either pro or anti-war. In that case, maybe I shouldn’t be writing this column.

If Americans continue to negatively impact those who choose to express contradictory views by aggressively decrying their observations or affecting other areas of their life based on their beliefs, they limit that person’s freedom. After all, Hussein’s regime does just that, only with governmental jurisdiction. As American’s lash-out against those with anti-war views, they unwittingly become more like their sworn enemy than the country they proudly represent. The boycott against the Dixie Chicks should be lifted.

So, criticizing the Chicks means, in effect, that the terrorists have won, that we’re just like Saddam. It undermines “the de facto status of our freedom of speech.” Criticizing airhead artists who speak out, and refusing to buy their works, “negatively impacts” them and limits their freedom. Worse, by speaking out so forcefully (if ungrammatically), some misinformed reader might mistakenly construe his views “as either pro-war or anti-war.”

This column wouldn’t be worth picking on if its views weren’t so widespread. Or maybe I exaggerate. I have been accused of seeing post-modernism lurking under every ill-formed, ungrammatical expression, and perhaps I’m guilty. Still, you can see how I leap to that conclusion when I encounter such comments as this from Rosemblat:

At this moment, there is in reality no definable wrong or right to the war against Iraq. Perhaps President Bush is correct in his fears that Iraq is illegally producing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped. On the other hand, perhaps the United Nations is right in its continued efforts to find a diplomatic solution. The objective truth is that no one knows for sure who is right or wrong, perhaps with the exception of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Oh well. I guess it’s O.K. as long as someone knows.