Nat Hentoff, a noted expert on The First Amendment, has, in his latest article entitled Valedictorian of the Year, committed the same error that nearly all civil libertarians commit when addressing the issue of Freedom of Speech/Expression. By defending Tiffany Schley’s right to free speech, Mr. Hentoff completely ignores her duty to accept responsibility for the choice she made.
Tiffany Schley, is the valedictorian of the High School of Legal Studies in Brooklyn. In this capacity she naturally had the privilege of addressing the graduating class at its public ceremony. The word privilege is very important here. The school took steps to insure that her address would be appropriate for the event and apparently there was no issue as to the school’s actions up to this point. However, Tiffany proceeded to give the address she originally penned which was a litany of attacks, legitimate though they may be, on the school’s administration and faculty. An assistant principal cut the microphone on her speech.
Now Mr. Hentoff argues that this is evidence that “the nation's public school students are learning far less about what used to be called civics.” No Mr. Hentoff, students are learning far less about what used to be called civility. Tiffany may have been correct in what she said however the focus should not be on whether she could but whether she should. The mere fact that one has a right to make certain utterances or engage in certain acts does not mean that same are appropriate in every venue. If this young lady wanted to state her issues in the school paper, I would be solidly in her corner were the school to attempt to censure her. However, she chose a venue that was intended to commemorate her and her classmates’ achievements and turned it into her own political soapbox. Talk about narcissism. Perhaps she might benefit from The Death of Right and Wrong (©2003 by Tammy Bruce / Three Rivers Press).
Mr Hentoff, and other civil libertarians, do a grave disservice to our nations’ core principals of free speech when they use it to defend the indefensible. In fact, I can usually gauge how indefensible a position is by the fact that the only argument in favour of it is “I have a right to say it.”
I am not questioning her legal right. I am only questioning the moral and ethical foundations, which guide it. Tiffany Schley knowingly and willfully engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Fine. But she should be made to understand that such a choice carries with it certain responsibilities and a certain level of personal accountability. This would be an appropriate lesson in civics Mr. Hentoff.
Tiffany Schley, is the valedictorian of the High School of Legal Studies in Brooklyn. In this capacity she naturally had the privilege of addressing the graduating class at its public ceremony. The word privilege is very important here. The school took steps to insure that her address would be appropriate for the event and apparently there was no issue as to the school’s actions up to this point. However, Tiffany proceeded to give the address she originally penned which was a litany of attacks, legitimate though they may be, on the school’s administration and faculty. An assistant principal cut the microphone on her speech.
Now Mr. Hentoff argues that this is evidence that “the nation's public school students are learning far less about what used to be called civics.” No Mr. Hentoff, students are learning far less about what used to be called civility. Tiffany may have been correct in what she said however the focus should not be on whether she could but whether she should. The mere fact that one has a right to make certain utterances or engage in certain acts does not mean that same are appropriate in every venue. If this young lady wanted to state her issues in the school paper, I would be solidly in her corner were the school to attempt to censure her. However, she chose a venue that was intended to commemorate her and her classmates’ achievements and turned it into her own political soapbox. Talk about narcissism. Perhaps she might benefit from The Death of Right and Wrong (©2003 by Tammy Bruce / Three Rivers Press).
Mr Hentoff, and other civil libertarians, do a grave disservice to our nations’ core principals of free speech when they use it to defend the indefensible. In fact, I can usually gauge how indefensible a position is by the fact that the only argument in favour of it is “I have a right to say it.”
I am not questioning her legal right. I am only questioning the moral and ethical foundations, which guide it. Tiffany Schley knowingly and willfully engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Fine. But she should be made to understand that such a choice carries with it certain responsibilities and a certain level of personal accountability. This would be an appropriate lesson in civics Mr. Hentoff.
No comments:
Post a Comment