Re: Tea and Krumpets

Menashi: Firstly, you criticize my comment regarding “invit[ing] the Ku Klux Klan to tea.” Apologies: I’m afraid sloppy syntax on my part is responsible for the confusion. I did not mean to imply that “we do, in fact, have to invite the Ku Klux Klan to tea, [emphasis added]” which is how you have interpreted it. Rather, I meant simply to suggest that we might want to invite them to campus to see what they have to say. I, for one, would be interested.

You say that ignoring (what we recognize as) the inherent stupidity of Paulin’s statements constitutes an abdication of Harvard’s mission, to wit, to promote “the best that has been thought and said.” Well, I would hope that Harvard does not interpret its mission in so censorious a light. As the University of Wisconsin’s Board of Regents noted in 1894, a university “should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” Indeed, sifting and winnowing, through the good, bad, and positively worthless, is essential to determining what, in fact, is “the best that has been thought and said.” Otherwise, it is not the best, but the obligatory, prominent not because of its inherent truthfulness but because alternatives are simply not allowed.

You imply, also, that I must think that a university “benefits from stupid and intelligent views alike.” Well, in fact, I do think that very thing, and John Stuart Mill agrees. He noted in 1823 that “doctrines which, if left to themselves, have no chance of prevailing, may be saved from oblivion by persecution.” Stupid views remind us, by their expression, both why they are stupid and why other arguments are not. Indeed, take the lesson of Paulin’s own statements. I would love for him to come to Harvard and say the crap he said in Al-Ahram. What better argument for vigilance against the rising tide of anti-Semitism could there be that to see it first-hand?

Furthermore, you say my argument suggests “that universities must never insist on any sort of academic standards in the work they sponsor and produce.” I say no such thing, but more importantly, neither does anyone else. No critic of Paulin has thusfar found fault with his intellectual honesty or his academic standards. They have found fault with his viewpoint. Intellectual honesty and academic standards have absolutely no bearing on the matter in question — Paulin is no Bellesiles. The latter engaged in academic dishonesty and fraud, completely contrary to the mission of a university; he should be run out of town for it (and was, thankfully). Whatever the flaws of his argument, Paulin is not dishonest, but simply wrong — and the spirit of free inquiry must always grant the right to be wrong. Naturally, there is a strong moral obligation for good people to challenge Paulin’s egregious and dangerous error. (Keeping him from speaking denies good people the chance to do this.) But by no means should he be punished merely for holding a certain view — that’s outrageous. So, your charge that I would abandon all standards of academic integrity is irrelevant, since a viewpoint — not any infraction against those standards — is at the heart of this controversy.

Lastly, you say that “the university shouldn’t be an incubator for ideas too stupid and insane to find a platform in the real world.” The trouble with what Paulin says, though, is quite the opposite, isn’t it? He’s symptomatic of a disturbing trend that, worldwide, has quite a prominent platform. (Indeed, we ignore them at our own great peril.) His views are too common, especially in Europe, and they don’t need an incubator to thrive. What they need is refutation. Keeping him out of the spotlight denies supporters of Israel the chance to offer the antidote to his poison.

Your serve.

(PS — Here’s a good page of Mill’s writings on free speech.)