Restriction of free speech in the U.S. Universities
I am writing a short response to Dr. Finkelstein, a professor at Pennsylvania University. Her note dealt with the Congressional hearing of the three university presidents. The incident that took plpace a short time ago. Her opinion resembles those of the “Prohibition” era. Prohibition never worked before and will not be effective now.
Misinterpreting an idea does not negate the actual values of that concept. Our decisions should encompass the results of all entities involved in our arbitration-making portfolios.
Dr. Clair O. Finkelstein’s writing “To Fight Antisemitism on Campuses, We Must Restrict Speech” is exceptionally superficial, shallow, and detrimental to broadening the faculty of the young generation. If there are misuses involved under the parameter of “free speeches,” in such cases, we should adequately counter the wrong by encouraging counter speeches.
Placing lids on the growth of the individual’s faculty is like, paraphrasing Mr. Thomas Jefferson’s words, “an act of hostility over the mind of man.”
Antisemitism should be considered a disease process; those inflicted need appropriate treatment. During my medical school years, all of us, the students, were instructed to look for the cause of the ailment, try to find the source of their illness, and design a treatment accordingly. The idea fits well with the subject of our discussion. Who is at fault for creating the sense of Antisemitism? What parts, if any, do the victims play? In other words, how much of it is self-inflicted? Would the preparators be willing to undergo the appropriate treatment? Antisemitism, like most other forms of prejudice, is not a genetic problem but an environmental one and can never be completely eradicated. However, it could be curbed by a relentless and continuous education, starting from childhood
Guils of Guilan 