To the editors:
In the current controversy about English poet Paulin’s controversial views and his right to speak here ( News, “Poet Flap Drew Summers’ Input,” Nov. 14 ), two small points seem to be lost upon many of us. First, all I know of these “hateful views” are what his antagonists have to say about them, and second, my own right to hear a speaker and make my own judgment has been abridged by those who would “protect” our tender sensibilities from an encounter with the controversial. It is not Paulin who is deprived; it is we who are denied the right of a University citizenship to decide for ourselves. No argument of analogy, moral or otherwise, is a sufficiently acceptable substitute for participation in a real argument. I associate myself with the views on this particular point of Professors Dershowitz, Fried and Tribe, and think it a sad day for our “Republic of Letters” when we cannot hear that which we are likely to disagree. Who next will be deemed to be “controversial,” and by whom? Surely we can and must do better than this.
Peter J. Gomes
Nov. 19, 2002
The writer is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church.
Controversial SpeakersTo the Editors of The Crimson: I think Dean Michael Spence is correct in stating that the University has a
'Ayatollah' Summers' Remarks Show BigotryTo the editors: By encouraging the cancellation of Irish poet Tom Paulin’s poetry reading, University President Lawrence H. Summers has
Department's Views On Paulin Not UnanimousTo the editors: I am writing in order to address a wrong impression that some have drawn from your front-page
Suppression of Free Speech 'Convenient'I am dismayed by the convenient suspension of “free speech” to suit a self-determined prejudice against its practice, however justified
Free Speech, Not Free Rein