The guest column (“Organizers and supporters of the demonstration against Ray Kelly: Standing for racial justice: A public statement,” Nov. 11) is troubling on many different levels. The organizers and supporters of the demonstration assert that a speech by New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly made them feel “unsafe,” “threatened” and “intimidated.” It is unclear what precisely made these students feel unsafe. I do not believe there is any evidence that the University was not taking measures to avoid physical threats or confrontation. Therefore, I can only conclude that it was the content of the speech that made the students feel unsafe. Protection and defense of freedom of speech cannot and should not be based on the content of the speech. That notion is antithetical to the fundamental concept of free speech. It is precisely speech that is difficult to hear or makes us feel uncomfortable that needs the most protection. If students do not feel safe discussing difficult and uncomfortable issues in a controlled university environment, it is difficult to conceive of a forum that would allow for the free exchange of difficult and uncomfortable ideas.
It is easy to defend speech with which we agree. It is, however, of the utmost importance to provide an open forum for speech with which we disagree or which makes us feel uncomfortable. The most disappointing part of the guest column is the failure of the student writers to confront the real issue in the free speech debate: who decides what speakers will be permitted to speak and what speakers will be prohibited from speaking. It is not free speech that should scare us, but rather the suppression of speech.
Tani Sapirstein ’78
ADVERTISEMENT
