Civil discourse is free discourse
Paul Gooch
Safiyyah Ally’s thoughtful
Forum piece draws the contrast between the legally permissible and what
is
disrespectful or hurtful and suggests that free speech might be limited
by
respect, even if it is permissible (Beyond Posturing, March 6). She
provides
some examples of limits on free expression and says that “civil
discourse
exists on a higher plane than does free speech, setting limits that are
often
not enacted by law but are rather agreed upon by individuals within
society.”
One has sympathy for those deeply offended by a particular form of free
expression, not least because almost all of us can imagine like offence
being
given by some other form: one person’s biting wit may mean another
person’s
hurtful wound.
The question for a
university, however, is not about social norms but about the very
meaning of
civil discourse. Civil discourse is not
always comfortable.
Sometimes it is passionate
and engaged, far from cool and polite. Its
very civility lies not in
manners, or in
the social conventions of a
group, but in its attempts to
create, challenge and
enlarge understanding.
Discourse that is truly
civil is the expression of a culture that embraces communities of
difference
who may passionately disagree but, nevertheless, continue to talk and
to
listen. Properly civil discourse will
not remain silent about the appropriate
limits on free expression; it will debate laws and customs; it will
call
prejudice to account even if it must shock to do so.
Bland speech may not offend but it may also
mask injustice. Civil discourse must sometimes be provocative discourse. No one should take delight in the offence of
others. But a free society is willing to give voice to the arts and to
the
press, for instance, even when they are scandalous or disrespectful,
because
power and prejudice love respectful silence. Within a free society, the
university has a special obligation to protect the space for free and
civil
discourse.
Different societies have
different limits on free expression. Where may these limits be
discussed, criticized, defended or
debated, if not in a
university? Where may the passionate learn to think and speak
effectively about
their passions, by opening them up to discussion and debate with
others, if not
in a university?
Universities must be places
where freedom flourishes, for there is no better place to explore and
determine
what civil discourse actually is. That is why the fundamental question
about
the limits of freedom in a university must be the simple one of whether
the
conditions of free and informed discussion are violated. Offence should
call forth
more discourse, not shut it down.
Paul Gooch is Professor of Philosophy, Victoria College,
University of
Toronto.
University of
Toronto Bulletin,
March
27, 2006.
Return
to Issues/Cases