In the U.S., we have a great gift in our Bill of Rights, and while each right guaranteed by the first 10 amendments to the constitution are critical to us all, they also all come with a price. That price is that even when we do not agree with how someone else might exercise those rights, in order for us to be able to exercise them as we see fit, we have to allow others that same courtesy. The rights contained in the first amendment are all related to free expression – and colloquially, tend to be packaged as forms of free speech.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That doesn’t mean we have to be captive and listen to what is said; it only means that a speaker has the right to say what they like.
Over the last week, there has been a great deal of media coverage of the silent protest/walkout at the graduation ceremony at Notre Dame University (e.g., see: Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today).
The university invited VP Pence to speak, and as a private institution, they had the freedom to invite whomever they wished. The Washington Post noted in its article linked above that this choice resulted from a petition by students and faculty asking for VP Pence in place of President Trump. So there was no foul there. The university responded to its own with this invitation.
Barring any prohibitions contained in his contract with the university, VP Pence had to the right to speak about whatever he wished. So again, no foul that he chose to make his remarks political.
The attendees, including faculty, graduates, and invited friends and family, were there voluntarily. They were not being held captive, so they were free to leave whenever they chose.
The students and invitees who chose to quietly leave violated no tenets of the rights to which we are all guaranteed. VP Pence had a right to speak about whatever he liked, even if some might find his remarks distasteful. The silent protesters had a right to leave and not listen to his remarks. Why they chose to leave was immaterial, as previously mentioned, they were not prisoners.
The subsequent debates on Facebook, in the media, and around the dinner table discussing whether this action was disrespectful or not are really a matter of opinion and are all well and good, but, respectful or not, in all cases, the actions were merely people exercising their First Amendment rights.
So how is this package of free speech a double edged sword? I’ll use a personal example from when I was in graduate school.
One summer day in 1986, I was taking a lengthy walk near my neighborhood in San Jose, CA. As I’ve mentioned in some of my comments on other stories, I am not a religious person. As guaranteed by the First Amendment, although the subject of some debate among some of my friends, the interpretation of freedom of religion, can mean freedom from religion if that’s how one chooses to see it (and it is the way I looked at it).
I was walking alone both to relax and to get a little exercise. As I passed a grocery store, a man carrying a bunch of literature approached me and asked if I would like to look at one of his pamphlets along with a miniature copy of a bible. I politely thanked him, said that I wasn’t interested, and kept walking. While I’m often up for a good discussion from an academic point of view, at that moment I was enjoying my walk and really didn’t want to talk.
Rather than just letting me continue on my way, he followed me, caught up, and again tried to get me to take his literature telling me that I had to read it. I again politely declined. At this point, he became very agitated and started yelling at me.
I quickened my pace. He quickened his and matched me step for step. He not only continued shouting at me as we walked, he started cursing me, calling me several profane names, some of which I hadn’t actually heard before. This continued for about 10-15 minutes, when finally, he stopped following me, and without breaking my stride or changing pace, I continued on my way.
While I probably should have been concerned for my safety, what went through my head instead was that this was not a way for him to win friends or positively influence anyone. The other thing that went through my head was that while I had no obligation to listen to what he was saying, or to take the literature he tried to force on me, he had a right to speak his mind, even if I found it disturbing. In the end, the path I chose at that time was precisely the one the silent protesters took at Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony – I walked away.
As I walked along once again enjoying my solitude, along with my thoughts about freedom of speech, a couple of adages went through my mind.
- My mother was always fond of saying “your free space ends where my nose begins,” and that one stuck with me. The man didn’t physically touch me in any way, so my nose and immediate personal space were still safe.
- Another adage from childhood was the proverbial “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” He was carrying no sticks or stones, and while his name calling was offensive and loud, it didn’t seem to pose a physical threat at the time.
In reality, this encounter probably constituted harassment, and had it been 2010 instead of 1986, I would have whipped out my iPhone, taken his picture and called 911 in some order. In 1986, I didn’t have a cell phone, and although he started following me from in front of a grocery store, he didn’t really get agitated until we were back in a residential area, so there was no payphone handy.
George Lakoff wrote a very enlightening piece shortly after the 2016 election talking about how and why certain messages hit the target while others miss. Although he initially focuses on polls and why they failed, the real point of his article is applicable to far more than just an election. It’s pertinent to why communication so often fails to cross an ideological divide and how one can make their free speech count. He points out that ideologies spring from specific worldviews, and those shape our responses and perceptions. In it, he states:
“Here is the crucial fact about worldview differences: We can only understand what our brain circuitry allows us to understand. If facts don’t fit the worldviews in our brains, the facts may not even be noticed — or they may be puzzling, or ignored, or rejected outright, or if threatening, attacked. All of these happen in politics. A global warming denier does not say, “I am denying science.” The facts just don’t fit his worldview and don’t make sense to him or her.”
He talks in some detail about how our neural frameworks work, and why certain techniques are more successful than others:
“The more neural circuits are activated, the more the stronger their synapses get, and so the more easily they can be activated again and the more likely they will become permanent. The more the public hears one side’s language, or sees one side’s images, the more that side’s frames will be activated, and the more that side’s worldview will be strengthened in the brains of those who watch and listen. This is why political communication systems matter.”
He provides several examples to support his assertions (and lists reference studies at the end of his article). He then identifies the worldviews that are at work at the opposite ends of the political spectrum in the form of a family metaphor as:
- The Nurturant Parent Family (Progressive)
- The Strict Father Family (Conservative)
According to Lakoff, in the end, it’s all about the messaging based on one’s worldview. So what can progressives do to try to get their messages across to someone who does not share their worldview?
He suggests the following:
“Right now the majority is fighting back, pointing out what is wrong with Trump day after day. In many cases, they are missing the message of Don’t Think of an Elephant! By fighting against Trump, many protesters are just showcasing Trump, keeping him in the limelight, rather than highlighting the majority’s positive moral view and viewing the problem with Trump from within the majority’s positive worldview frame.”
The majority to which he refers is the popular vote majority from the 2016 election. In some ways, the silent protest at the Notre Dame graduation took this tack. It made a point without negative speech. Sometimes, carefully placed silence can speak volumes and can be wisest expression of all.