University Daily Kansan / Tuesday, February 23, 1988
5
TuesdayForum
Tolerating the KKK is not an endorsement
The recent controversy over members of the Ku Klux Klan speaking to a KU journalism class is a
1 Klux Klan speaking to a KU journalism class is a continuation of the controversial questions raised by allowing militant and radical groups and individuals access to the media and to college campuses. Although many members of the community have expressed opposition to allowing the Klan members the right to speak, I believe that it is important that the Klansmen be allowed to address the class as was planned.
There are three reasons why the Klan members should be allowed to speak on campus. The first of these is that in our system we believe in a "free marketplace of ideas" where ideas can be debated and challenged in an open atmosphere. Allowing the Klan members to speak on campus does not legitimize them. Exposure of their hateful message is the best thing to defuse their power. It is by censoring them that we legitimize them by giving them more credit than they deserve. The Klan message is hatred of the American system of plurality and equality. If we censor them, we prove their message, that we are a society that cannot defend its values in open honest debate.
Since I come from northwestern Arkansas where the Klan and its offsheets like The Order and The Cross, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord are active, I do not underestimate the dangerous nature of these groups or the hateful nature of their message. It is important, however, that we do not base important decisions on fear but rather on a calm rational appraisal of the implications of what those decisions can mean.
Charles C. Howard
Guest Columnist
One of the oldest axioms of free society is that the best remedy for bad speech is not suppression but more speech. By allowing the Klan members to speak, we expose their hateful message to those who may be unaware of just how radical and evil that message is. By allowing them to speak, we engage them in debate where their ideas can be challenged by responsible members of society. Since it would be foolish to believe that the Klan's message will cease if we censor it, our responsibility is to defuse and expose it for what it is. This can best be done in the enlightened atmosphere of a university in open debate. By censoring the message, we admit we are afraid of it and unable to respond to it in any other fashion.
The second reason to allow the Klan members to speak is that censoring them puts the University between two unenviable positions. The first of these is that the administration will be in the position of sanctioning future speakers that are allowed to speak. The message will be that these speakers, no matter what their rhetoric, are not as bad as the Klan. So, the University may be put in the position of saying that an anti-Semitic
speaker or a member of some radical political party such as the Socialist Workers or the American Communist Party are better than the Klan since we did not censor them.
The only other position that the administration could take would be to censor all groups that anyone objected to. Such a precedent would establish a "heckler's veto" over any controversial speaker or group appearing on campus. If the rule applies to the Klan, why does it not apply to the Socialist Workers or the American Communist Party? If the rule applies to them, why not to groups advocating homosexual rights or women's rights or anyone else's? So, by censoring the Klan, the administration either finds itself sanctioning future controversial speakers or setting a precedent that would eliminate a large number of speakers and points of view.
The final reason why the Klan should be allowed to speak on campus is the principle of the First Amendment. The First Amendment and the rights to freedom of speech and expression are so important that we should never allow any group to be deprived of them. The system of free expression and academic freedom are foundations of the American system of democracy. Censoring groups whose messages are hateful or repulsive to normal people violates the principle of the First Amendment and sets a precedent that is hard to turn back from.
Other political systems such as the Soviet Union or the aparthid regime of South Africa are built on censoring and denying access to points of view that they feel are
dangerous to social order. The United States needs to hold itself to a higher standard and to keep better company than the Soviet Union or South Africa. Many civil rights groups have used the protections and rights insured by First Amendment in their fight for justice and equality. The black freedom fighters in South Africa have no such foundation on which to build their fight for justice.
The French philosopher Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Protecting the First Amendment, even to the extent of giving its protection to those who would abolish it, preserves the foundation of freedoms for all Americans. He insisted that Klansmen and Nazis, we insure that civil rights groups and the Young Americans for Freedom will never have to fight for their rights.
It is often difficult to defend the rights of those we find reprehensible and dangerous. We must be sensitive to those who have legitimate fears of racial hatred preached by the Klan. But the choice we must make is between censoring groups or allowing freedom of speech to operate. Tolerance does not mean that you give equal credibility and truth to every group but that you understand that although some individuals and groups are wrong and hateful their rights should not be suppressed by a tyranny of the majority.
Charles C. Howard is a Clarksville, Ark., graduate student majoring in communication studies.
Klan forfeits rights
I disagree with the Kansan's stance on the Klan issue. I feel that the cancellation of the visit of the Ku Klux Klan is correct. The University should not play host to groups that practice acts of extreme hatred. Many of the things that the Klan does are illegal, either in the eyes of the state or in the eyes of God. Also, if the Klan got their way, black people would be denied their constitutional rights. For these reasons, the Klan has forfeited its First Amendment rights. Journalists should make public the ugly practices of the Klan, but they should go off-campus to do so.
On another issue of civil rights, I believe that all good-minded citizens should take part in the movement for sanctions against U.S. racism. What this means is that consumers should boycott the products of companies that are
hostile to the black community. Consumers should practice this, as well as patronize black-owned businesses whenever possible. The result of this would be the economic improvement of the black community. And when the black community benefits, the United States benefits. If anyone wants to learn more about this concept of sanctions, I urge them to attend the Thursday night lecture by Robert Law at Alderson Auditorium at 7:30. If you can't make it, then take time to listen to Law's show, Night Talk, on weeknights at midnight on KPRS.
Charles Castel Kalamazoo, Mich., junior
Opportunity missed
I am writing in regard to the cancellation of the appearance by the Ku Klux Klan on KJHK's radio talk show. The opposition to this appearance did itself a disservice by demanding the cancellation.
Perhaps the invitation from KJHK was ill-advised. But the controversy that resulted from the cancellation aroused
the minds of KU students and surrounding communities. Questions have been left unanswered in minds that before I no longer have care about the issue of rage.
A free society fulfills its duty by not censoring extreme opinions. JKHK fulfilled its obligation as a responsible radio station by offering an open forum of conflicting views. But the Klan's appearance was taken as an insult to Black History Month. The irony is that something very good could have come from something bad. Opportunities like that are few and far between.
Though difficult to accept at times, the KKK, for example, must be allowed to speak so that men like Martin Luther King Jr. may do the same. As long as our society is educated to think critically, destructive philosophies should die of their own irrelevance.
But one more step must be taken. Whenever there is an open forum, those who believe they are right must meet for the sake of the apathetic and ignorant. The truth will prevail. Like a cancer, extremism left unconfronted spreads.
Eric Hughes Shawnee sophomore
Support free speech
I hope that both blacks and whites who oppose racism will consider these reasons for allowing bigots to speak on campus:
so that opponents of racism can debate racists and show that racism is wrong:
so that journalism students can learn how to report on racism without supporting it;
so that scholars can study the causes and psychology of racism first hand;
so that students can learn how to reply to racist ideas and arguments;
the psychology of racism first hand;
■ so that students can learn how to reply to racist ideas and arguments;
■ so that we all can picket and demonstrate against self-declared racists;
■ so that these openly malignant outside racists can help confront the subtly malignant racism already on campus;
■ so that the racists themselves can have an opportunity to learn and change;
■ so that we can follow in the path of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Jesus, who taught us to resist evil with love;
- so that we can learn and increase our own strength by means of confrontation
and so that we can support the princi-
pile of free speech, knowing full well that
we speak when when our own free
speech is endangered.
David Burress
Assistant professor of economics
David Burress
Don't control thought
Dear Thought Police Commissioner
Budig:
Thank you so much for saving me the despair of being offended by the visit of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm certainly glad that I attend a university that realizes an absolute of this universe — that is, if we talk about nasty problems they'll go away.
Besides, I've got so much to think about with my classes and all those basketball games. I want my college memories to be pleasant.
By the way, if you need any ideas for some speakers that won't lead to any protest (heaven forbid), I believe that Merv Griffen and Mary Hart are available. Hey, how about that Willard Scott fella? He always makes me feel happy in the morning. Have a happy and conflict-free day and thank you for having the courage to set a precedent.
Michael G. Connor Lawrence graduate student
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1988
9:00 AM - 1:30 PM
KANSAS UNION
If you are a leader of a student organization or have aspirations of becoming one, this conference is designed for you. Programs offered will cover a wide spectrum of student issues and will help you develop your leadership abilities.A required $5.00 registration fee includes lunch.
Keynote speaker: Deanell Reece Tacha, Judge, Tenth Circuit, Court of Appeals
For further information and registration materials contact:
The Organizations and Activities Center
105 Burge Union
864-4861
This spring, make a break for it.
$49.50 This Spring Break, catch a Greyhound to the beach, the mountains or your hometown. For $49.50 each way, you and your friends will have a great time when you go Greyhound.
GO GREYHOUND And leave the driving to us.
Most grown-ups value college loan 1.25, 1.50, and 2.00 per month payoff. No offer discount applies. Technically unaffected and good to the extent that you are interested in a 2-year term. Offer efficiencies include a 36-month interest-free loan through 2.00, through 2.54. Not valid on loans. No offer discount applies. Offer efficiencies also apply for $99 or less.