“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” 

These words were penned in 1918 by Rosa Luxemburg, a leading revolutionary socialist of her day. She was criticizing Lenin and his Bolshevik Party with these words, warning them that if they eliminated freedom for other political parties, Russia would not become a worker’s state. It would become a prison house. 

History has shown that she was right and her adversary, Lenin, was wrong.

Her point is just as strong today as it was almost a century ago.  Look around the political landscape today.  You see group after group of advocates, on both the political left and the right, more interested in silencing their opponents than they are in presenting their own views.
Like Lenin, they believe that if they have the intellectual field to themselves they have somehow won a great victory.  Nothing could be further from the case. 

Cutting off criticism of your own ideas is like cutting off oxygen to your own brain.  Creative thinkers thrive on criticism, on being challenged and on being asked to explain their ideas.  If you silence your critics, the first real victim is not your opponent.  It’s you.   

Your opponents will find some way to get their message out, and they will have the extra-added advantage of wearing the mantel of intellectual martyrdom.

You, on the other hand, by your suppression, you have turned your own thinking into a mannequin.  This happened to Marxism and to Medieval Scholastic philosophy.  Once criticism was forbidden, a growing number of thinking women and men became convinced that the theories of a Marx or an Aristotle were so weak that they could only be defended by official dictate.

In addition to the millions who died at hands of a Stalin or a Grand Inquisitor, Marx and Aristotle were dismissed as retrograde thinkers, which they were not.

Modern liberalism is, in many ways, a critical response the enforced dogma of a Communist Party or an inquisition, and our modern university is a quintessentially liberal institution. 

This does not mean that there is only room for liberal political thinking. That would make us a profoundly illiberal institution. If the university is true to its liberal ideals, there is room for a vast array of opinions on important issues. 

Yes, there are limits to freedom of speech, even on a college campus.  At the same time, we should admit that every time we have to silence someone within the university community, the failure is primarily ours. 

It means that, somehow, we are unable to muster the intellectual resources to respond to an idea, or that we have adjudged our students to be so intellectually bereft that they are unable to handle the mental strain of any idea that is not stamped officially approved.

The strongest case for silencing an opinion of a college campus today is on grounds of sensitivity.  We are, after all, a school that seeks to be a moral community and we should remember that words can wound. 

The best response I know to this argument comes from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.

“To my mind, democracy is more compassionate, more harmonious and friendlier than any other system.  It respects the others’ rights and considers others equally as human brothers and sisters.  Although you might disagree with them, you have to respect their wishes.” 

The reason that I am faculty adviser for the Loyola Society for Civic Engagement is to help build a community that is moral, diverse and also an education in strong democratic citizenship.  May it be so!

Roger White is a vice provost and a political science professor. He is the faculty adviser for the Loyola Society for Civic Engagement. He can be reached at [email protected]

On The Record is a weekly column open to Loyola faculty and staff. Those who are interested can email [email protected]