Hateful speech is harmful

To the Editor: 

When the vitriol of those who lack a moral compass reaches the crescendo that has enveloped some of America’s once-proud university campuses and the leadership of those institutions stand mute or are mealy mouthed, the time for inaction has passed. The message is clear: as a nation, we are in deep trouble; Democracy is again being tested and some of its leaders are AWOL.

Those who either lack the ability to discern the fundamental difference between free speech and hateful speech or the moral compass to recognize and resist the purveyors of hateful speech have, in my opinion, no right to assume responsibility for institutions of higher education –or, in fact, any other position of public responsibility. 

Yes, the price for resistance to bigotry, racism, islamophobia, antisemitism and the peddlers of like mindless vitriol can, on occasion, be high, but never as high as that which will inevitably result as Democracy falters and fails.

The MTA — rarely known as the beacon of moral rectitude — showed the way a few years ago to those who still care about our nation’s soul. As paid advertisements appeared on train platforms, buses and other MTA public places displaying negative images designed to invoke or inflame Islamophobia (e.g., beheadings by Middle Eastern extremists), the MTA board, led by many of its Jewish members, banned all such advertisements on MTA property. To do so, consistent with First Amendment strictures, the MTA surrendered the proceeds from all political and certain viewpoint advertisements. The board rightly concluded that that was a small price to pay to bar hateful and thus harmful speech. 

By sharp contrast, America watched the disgusting display of presidents of three of America’s once most proud institutions — University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and MIT — demonstrate what, in my opinion, is critically wrong with America’s institutions today. 

As N.Y. Congressperson Elise Stefanik posed a simple and direct question designed to elicit the presidents’ position (and presumably that of the institutions they lead) on campus rhetoric invoking genocide as it has long plagued those of the Jewish faith, these three, in my opinion, ducked, bobbed and weaved on an issue so basic that anyone with a sound moral compass would have joined Rep. Stefanik and most House of Representatives members in condemning such racist and bigoted campus rhetoric.

Instead, each, to my mind, either sought to demonstrate cleverness or manifested indifference by equivocation. Each failed in response to roundly condemn hurtful and harmful speech. Each, by timidity or inapt effort to demonstrate avoidance skills or desire to appear to be all things to all people, evidenced a fundamental moral failure to confront manifest evil. Each, as I see it, MUST PROMPTLY GO if the perception of their institution is not to be judged against the moral void of their responses and the volumes spoken by their inaction in the face of bigotry and worse. 

There are stark contrasts — portraits in courage. Tiny Hofstra University on Long Island is one example. Dr. Susan Poster, Hofstra’s able president, made clear from the outset, as did Its distinguished board, that it would have none of these harmful excesses or efforts at intimidation. To date, their resolve and adherence to principle has prevailed, a lesson and example not just to the three presidents but to Columbia and other local institutions that have opted for inaction or timorous words in times of harmful excesses.

We stand at a crossroad. The signpost offers two cautionary reminders: Burke’s injunction that  “All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good [people] to do nothing”; the other bears Santayana’s timeless reminder that “those who do not learn the history are doomed to relive it.”

The three presidents ignored both, in my view. We simply cannot afford to follow suit or to tolerate the actions or omissions of those who, in my opinion, enable bigotry and worse.

Charles G. Moerdler