During the heated 2016 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton tried to outflank Bernie Sanders on the issue of health care when she said “well, I don’t know where he was when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ‘94, standing up against the insurance companies, standing up against the drug companies.” Sanders’ camp responded hilariously, pointing out that not only did Sanders attend a health care reform event led by Clinton in 1993, but he stood directly behind her as she made the case for expanding health care.
I thought of that humorous tussle when I read one of Jeet Heer’s tweets last week. The Nation writer critiqued free speech defenders for supposedly ignoring the University of Southern California’s axing of pro-Palestine valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s commencement speech. Heer wrote “there’s a striking silence on this matter from liberals and centrists who claim to cherish free speech.”
Heer faces the same obstacle as Clinton. The people he claims are disloyal to his cause are right behind hi…err, Tabassum. There’s Tim Carney criticizing USC. There’s Megan McArdle, Jeffrey Sachs, Ben Dreyfuss (who Jeet acknowledges as an exception), Bari Weiss, Sonny Bunch, Alex Morey, Morey’s organization against college censorship FIRE, and well, you get the point.
Are all these people liberals and centrists? That’s a different discussion. These are the people Heer is taking aim at in his tweet, the ones he and his ideological allies (who he’d probably term leftists) consistently argue with on free speech matters, such as if there’s a thing called cancel culture. Their ideological makeup should presumably be irrelevant when Heer’s critique is they are insufficiently committed to free speech.
What is relevant about Heer’s baseless charge of hypocrisy is it’s not an isolated one. Repeatedly over the years when someone on the left gets silenced, some leftist allies chastise free speech supporters for not denouncing censorship. The people harangued as hypocrites tend to call themselves liberals, centrists, conservatives (even worse), or Sonny Bunch (the worst). However, sometimes, the people who get shots taken at them are leftists. Many, though not all, signed the notorious Harper’s Letter criticizing the current climate around expression in the country (a letter Heer signed, intriguingly without knowing most of his fellow signatories would be foes).
There are two problems for leftists like Heer in these apparent free speech hypocrisy cases, whether they involve censorship against Palestine-sympathetic college students, Ivy League Presidents dragged in front of Congress by right-wing culture warriors, or Critical Race Theory texts banned in the classroom by Republican lawmakers. First is practical. Just because someone is a free speech champion does not mean they have the time to write defenses of every single person whose expression is unfairly curtailed. Even if the media members listed above had not said anything publicly in support of Tabassum, this wouldn’t prove that they agree with USC’s decision. The other, bigger issue for the Heers of the world is that often, the free speech defenders shield those being censored. They call USC ludicrous. They acknowledge the Ivy League Presidents were targeted in bad faith. They argue pro-Palestine students shouldn’t face censorship or harassment. The Harper’s Letter’s main composer defended teaching CRT in The New York Times, for God’s sake.
Of course, such facts don’t have to pose trouble for Heer and his ideological allies, like Osita Nwanevu, Michael Hobbes, Noah Berlatsky, etc. They could be happy that whatever their other political disagreements, such adversaries actually seem to cherish free speech. Heer and his buddies could be overjoyed they have so many others standing behind them against censorship. Instead, they pretend free speech defenders keep abandoning censored individuals even when such claims make Heer’s allies look foolish. Why? Well, the answer may be that Heer and his friends realize that the liberals, centrists, conservatives, and leftists they spar with on free speech debates are not behind them, they’re in front; heck, they may actually be the only ones waging a war to challenge censorship.
Don’t agree? Ask yourself whose side’s ideas and tactics better promote a climate for free expression? Is it the belief of those Heer criticizes that free speech is a fundamental good, not just a right, for democracy and journalism, and thus expression needs to be given easily accessible outlets in professional and social settings? Or is it the belief among Heer’s group that because America is oppressive and unequal, free speech can’t be applied neutrally, so censorship needs to be accepted in places not bound by the first amendment? Does the former party’s disdain for cancel culture, offensive expression being met with growing employment and social penalties, make more room for people to speak their minds? Or do people feel more invigorated to speak by the latter party’s assertion that cancel culture’s targets are fine, face no real threats, and merely deal with the fact that nobody wants to listen to them? Is the first group more likely to undermine censorship by sympathizing with those who can’t speak or write honestly? Or is Heer’s team more likely to land a blow against censorship when they excuse constraining expression by calling it “accountability,” defending it by saying “nobody is entitled to a platform,” and claiming it is needed for the ”safety” of the marginalized?
Look at Tabassum’s case. Both the people Heer attacks and his side have come out in her favor, but whose arguments and strategies serve her? When someone, whether a liberal, a centrist, or leftist, argues Tabassum should speak even if she angers others, whose side does such a view fall on? Is it not the side of the unapologetic Harper’s Letter signatories? Is critiquing a person’s silencing, even when—like Tabassum—they’ve avoided jail time or employment/social consequences, not the very response cancel culture critics display and cancel culture apologists deride?
On the other hand, think of how little value the responses of Heer’s side are to Tabassum. If upsetting oppressed groups is grounds for censorship, is it not acceptable that her speech was stopped since she angered Jewish groups at USC? If people canceled are fine as long as they don’t suffer legal consequences, what harm has been committed to Tabassum, who has not been arrested or even fired from a job? If not owing anyone a platform means taking one away after mob pressure is ok, what is unjust about USC stripping her of a speaking slot? If it is justified to censor someone because their ideas could lead to an unsafe environment, why not applaud USC for silencing Tabassum? The University provost claims this is the exact reasoning for the act: USC cannot protect students, including Tabassum, from violence over her remarks.
No matter which way you look at Tabassum’s situation, the ideas and arguments Heer’s side promotes presents her censorship as good. Comically, as seen by USC’s own words, the security argument treats her censorship as a benefit to her. Meanwhile, the liberals, centrists, conservatives, and leftists Heer’s side lambasts as naïve on free expression provide arguments that convince people to listen to Tabassum even when they disagree. Their approach and tactics are so valuable that Heer and his allies turn to them when someone they agree with can’t speak. It’s easy to see, then, why Heer and his friends hate the free speech cherishers and try to frame them as hypocrites. It must be painful to realize that in their consistent concern for the dignity of all humans to express themselves freely, these defenders create better arguments for Heer’s side to be heard than Heer and his ideological cohort do—not just to be heard, but to be heard by those who disagree, to actually have the chance to change minds. Some advice, then, to Heer and those like him to ease their understandable guilt: instead of falsely accusing your free speech antagonists of hypocrisy, maybe get behind them?
Exploring Cinema 