Sensitive Speech

Ignorance provokes persecution.

   Freedom of Speech is not absolute. There are some topics that are so sensitive as to be off limits. But where is the line?
   The line is movable and variable over time, culture and circumstance. In general, however, researching and investigating opposition views can be a very useful and productive educational tool, as well as a means to reach a compromise, if not an accommodation.
   You don't have to agree with alternate views, but it is important to understand them.
   For example, we can understand how and why certain events happened in Germany in the 1930s, without agreeing with them. But in learning about and understanding the background of events, we can develop means to prevent them from happening again.
   A high school teacher in Albany, N.Y., recently ran afoul of the sensitive speech issue when students were assigned to write a five-paragraph essay defending Nazi treatment of Jews, and explaining why many Nazis believed "Jews are evil."

   The events of that period are long past the memories of 10th grade students, so one of the most effective ways of learning about them is to do individual research and writing. Should the teacher not have assigned the topic, allowing students to remain ignorant? Should the teacher have assigned only the modern "correct" viewpoint be covered in the essay? Should the teacher have dictated that only the non-Nazi viewpoint be written about?
   Or is it possible that in sending the students to research and write about an unpopular position, the students learn to think, and not be told to blindly accept a single position?

   As for defending unpopular causes or people, lawyers do it every day, even when they don't agree with their client's beliefs or actions. It is basic to our legal system that everyone, even those who perpetrate the most heinous crimes, is entitled to defense counsel. And in order for a lawyer to defend a client, the lawyer must understand the defendant's thoughts and beliefs.
   Understanding the how and why is a basic goal of history studies. Otherwise, as George Santayana noted, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

   Meanwhile, consider this: In a discussion, those who maintain, "You have to understand ... " are operating on a false premise. That is, the idea that once you understand their position, you therefore agree with it. 'Tain't necessarily so. A reply from this corner is, "I do understand, and I still think you're full of donkey dust."
   Or this strategy: "Don't you think that ... ?" They're not asking for opinion, but for agreement.

  The prime directive of Editor's Revenge is not to persuade, but to prompt thought. If that means those who disagree reinforce their positions by thinking about them, that's fine. There is danger in those who believe without thinking.