Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 30, 1993 TAG: 9311300365
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BEN HODGES
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Rollins' participation in, and disclosure of, a campaign practice of suppressing voter turnout in minority neighborhoods - which he now says did not happen - has rightly been judged as reprehensible to the democratic ideals of this nation. Rollins also disclosed his monumental insensitivity to the fury and uproar sure to arise from his remarks. Rollins is not alone in letting a loose tongue get ahead of a closed mind or a tone-deaf ear.
In 1968, Gen. Curtis LeMay, the running mate of presidential candidateGov. George Wallace, frightened the nation with his remark that he thought America should "bomb the North Vietnamese back to the Stone Age." LeMay, a decorated Air Force hero, displayed an insensitivity to how his remarks would be perceived by his listeners, and in the process vaporized his chances of becoming vice president, or perhaps even more importantly,of ever being taken seriously again as a public figure. The most dangerous aspect of LeMay's remarks, of course, was that he was serious.
Al Campanis, an official of the Los Angeles Dodgers organization, in a national television appearancespoke on national television about the limited "capacities" of blacks to manage professional baseball clubs. Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder expressed his views about the genetic and physiological traits of black athletes. Campanis and "The Greek" quickly lost their jobs and their credibility.
Former presidential candidate Gov. George Romney doomed his 1968 campaign by his remark that he had been ``brainwashed" on a prior visit to Vietnam. Romney quickly disappeared from the national scene, limping away with the shards of his credibility.
The list of casualties from self-inflicted wounds is, indeed, long: Alexander "I am in control here" Haig; Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon; James "... a woman, a Jew, and a cripple" Watt; Oral "God will call me home" Roberts; Adm. James "What am I doing here?" Stockdale; and Joseph "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" McCarthy are but a few who readily come to mind.
In each example, there were no restrictions on what could be said aside from one's own temperance, good sense and propriety. Listeners made up their own minds about both the content of what was spoken and, rightly or wrongly, about the character of the individuals making such remarks.
Perhaps academic leaders advocating campus speech codes could draw some lessons from the fate suffered by the public figures cited above (and of the many others not cited). Consider the hypothetical example of a college student, during a college-sponsored debate, expressing the same racially offensive views offered by Al Campanis. What would be the likely reaction? I suggest that the student would be ostracized, Campanis-like, due to his bigotry and self- discrediting. No code yet devised will prevent a fool, a bigot or a demagogue from soon presenting himself thus.
Efforts to suppress certain words from being uttered, or certain concepts from being discussed, are representative of a "supply side" approach to political correctness. The notion here is that all offensive words or ideas can be corralled and put into a corner where no one may trespass.
Such an approach is wrongheaded. The "demand side" approach of letting ideas fend for themselves in the court of just and fair public opinion is, demonstrably, the more effective way to expose hurtful, insensitive and incorrect ideas, and those who hold them.
Could a speech code have prevented any one of these individuals from uttering the words that damaged the credibility of those who spoke them? Could even the most stringent penalties called for in any of the current speech codes approach the swift penalty of societal diminution and reduced esteem of those making offensive remarks? I don't think so.
Instead of laboring over codes that restrict the content of speech, well-intentioned advocates of campus speech codes might best direct their efforts at encouraging the free and vigorous expression of ideas.
Along with the right to express ideas - even offensive ones - comes the moral, intellectual and humane imperative to remain true to the facts and to one's conscience. Those making statements - on all sides of the ideological spectrum - have the responsibility of facing the consequences of their remarks. As the late H.R. Haldeman instructs all speakers, "It is difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube once it is out."
The expression of racially, culturally or otherwise patently offensive views exposes the ignorance, bias, insecurities and disrespect of the speaker toward the target of abuse. A climate in which expression is encouraged, not restricted, will do (and has done) more to truly educate individuals and increase sensitivities and sensibilities. Nothing is as harmful to prejudiced, irrational or incorrect ideas or speakers as the bright light of day upon them. Only in the dark will slime prosper.
\ Ben Hodges, a doctoral student at Virginia Tech, is former alumni director of Ferrum College.
by CNB