Tolerance: No Free Speech Allowed?

On October 27, Professor Bert Chapman, a librarian at Purdue University, posted an entry to his blog expressing his ideas about homosexuality and its economic impact on society. In his entry he attacked homosexuality for, among other things, costing society large amounts of money because of the AIDS crisis and for “pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases.” Chapman’s blog entry went on to connect a general view of homosexuality with male-on-male rape in prison, and then to criticizing Universities, public institutions, and businesses for offering same sex couple and domestic partnership benefits, claiming this results in decreased benefits to “those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards.”

It is difficult to find much in Chapman’s entry which hasn’t been discussed in public before, and the entry as a whole appears to be poorly researched; it used the word “probably” three times when referencing fairly simple statistics which shouldn’t require equivocations. Indeed, it would appear the arguments advocated by Chapman have virtually no chance of receiving any kind of serious consideration by policy makers at any level of government or business. Yet, at the time of the writing of this piece, there have been 10 letters printed in the Purdue Exponent in three days discussing Chapman’s opinions, and on Nov 11, 2009, a new group called the “Coalition Against Devalued Education” will hold a protest in opposition to the Professor.

So why all the hubbub about a crazy Librarian at Purdue? When reading the letters printed in the Purdue Exponent, few of those responding attempted to debunk Chapman’s actual claims—It would seem first grade logic would suffice in that pursuit. Instead, most of the letters printed resorted to calling Professor Chapman things like “bigoted,” “hateful,” and guilty of spreading “hate-filled propaganda.” One has to wonder: what is the point of spending so much effort to respond to an entry of an obscure Professor?

Attention, of course, is the answer. The backlash against Professor Chapman is not the result of individual students reading his blog and responding, but is instead the organized effort by several officers and members of the Purude University College Democrats who aim to string up an easy target for a game of piñata. Professor Chapman is a straw man and his incoherent ramblings do not deserve our attention.

The opinions expressed by Chapman are offensive to many, but what about those who attack him personally without actually delving into the substance of his argument?  It seems to be generally accepted that his arguments are too outrageous to require any effort to refute them. Yet we see what appears to be an organized effort to respond to the librarian. People who would publicize fringe opinions far outside the mainstream, only to attack their holders, do us no service. 

Advocating the notion that words or opinions alone are dangerous and should require regulation and punishment is an attack on freedom of speech. That virtually no one has refuted the substance of Chapman’s arguments demonstrates that the purpose of this organized public campaign against him has virtually nothing to do with actual policy, and everything to do with finding a sacrifice for the sake of “tolerance.”

True tolerance requires us not just to be tolerant of that with which we agree or is itself “tolerant,” but also of those opinions which go against the very notion of tolerance. This is not required to satisfy some invisible moral theory, but rather it guarantees that all opinions, no matter how offensive or fringe can be expressed, evaluated honestly by society and either accepted or rejected. Though it may be tough to stomach, ideological nuts cannot be punished for their outlandish opinions if we are to preserve open and honest debate. It also serves as a particularly visible example of why I don’t have to worry about writing or discussing whatever my hearts pleases, because there is always someone twice as crazy and offensive out there doing the same.

Freedom of speech should not only be applied to restrict government, but also to any institution claiming to pursue academic and intellectual honesty.   Professor Chapman has presumably performed his job well enough in the past to earn his position as a tenured professor—his particular opinions have no impact on that. Furthermore, acknowledging that fact and ensuring he keeps his tenure serves as a particularly strong endorsement of freedom of speech and tolerance by Purdue.

There will be those who will claim that opinions alone can harm students at Purdue. The childhood rhyme about sticks and stones should sufficient to quell such concerns. Many on the Left are desperately in need of a lesson, not in sensitivity training, but in insensitivity training. We should not be so sensitive to other people’s opinions  as to allow those opinions to hurt us when they  disapprove of us as individuals.  Not every stupid idea requires an organized campaign to debunk it, and an individual to demonize.

As for Professor Chapman, being gay myself, I do not see him as some hate-filled bogeyman, but instead as an individual desperately in need of an education. Even if it’s too late to cut through what appears to be a life-time of prejudice, if he can adequately perform his job as a librarian, he should keep his job.  Let’s make sure he stays at Purdue as it is a great institution to learn not only about facts and ideas, but life and other people.