Prior to the Ray Kelly incident, Zach Ingber ’15 expressed his concern that the Brown community does not adequately take “conservative” ideas seriously. He claimed that the campus makes it difficult for conservatives to express opinions without immediately being cut down by liberal dogmatists, and felt that this attitude belies the Brown mission statement to “preserve knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry.” (“Free speech at Brown?” Oct. 21).
In response, Matt Breuer ’14 chided him for being “naive.” He agreed with Ingber that conservatives don’t have much of a voice here, but said condescendingly — and a little too honestly — “It’s too bad that conservatives at Brown feel lonely or underappreciated, but that is the nature of attending an overwhelmingly liberal university.” In short, conservatives don’t belong here (“Clearing the air: Free inquiry at Brown is alive and well,” Oct. 24).
Breuer has confirmed Ingber’s point. The “liberalism” that pervades the University is not the free inquiry Brown’s mission compels it to preserve. It is actually a spirit of conformity that rejects anyone whose line of thought breaks from the short list of acceptable speech. How is it possible to discuss important public policy issues while silencing key but unpopular viewpoints? A Brown student should be able to give shape to and voice ideas, so long as they align with his understanding of what is ethical, moral and true.
Unfortunately, many academics see dissenters as evil and anti-progressive. For example, Daniel Carrigg GS misleads his readers stating that a “fundamental tenet of economic conservatism” is one that advocates “tax cuts for the wealthy and retirement benefit cuts for the middle class” as a spur to economic growth (“A deepening divide in the Democratic party,” Oct. 24).
This is a straw-man fallacy. No fiscal conservative would ever advocate such a policy. Economist and Reagan adviser Milton Friedman favored broad-based tax cuts as the best cure for economic stagnation because, as he argued in a 2000 interview, “it enables the ultimate consumer — the ultimate individual, you and me — to decide how the money should be used.” A 10 percent tax cut across all levels would benefit everyone equally. Wealthier taxpayers would receive larger rebates than others because, under a progressive tax system, they pay more in taxes. Only by a calculated distortion could this be construed as a “tax cut for the wealthy.”
Similarly, a fiscal conservative would not advocate for “retirement benefit cuts for the middle class.” Rather, a true fiscal conservative demands accountability and that public debts, including pension funds, be funded first before other projects.
Rhode Island’s state legislature, dominated by Democrats since 1935, has inadequately funded the state pension fund. In 2011, Gina Raimondo, the state’s general treasurer and a possible Democratic candidate for governor, held a series of town hall meetings making this very same point. She noted that the state retirement board had deliberately overestimated the rate of return on pension investments, and that the state had repeatedly balanced the books by refusing to make any contribution to the pension fund at all. If a private investment firm did what the state did, somebody would be led away in handcuffs.
By falsely demonizing Rhode Island conservatives and their motives — and irrationally championing liberals as economic saviors — Carrigg has sidestepped any real debate on the choices available to those considering the problem of pension reform. Thus, any proposal for reform based on tax cuts as a way to fix the pension problem is casually cast aside without being considered. We are left with a false dichotomy and a set of false choices amounting to worse and way worse.
In this liberally biased environment, the young conservative intellectual is constantly lectured, pooh-poohed, ignored or denounced by the voices of “liberalism.” No one will engage him in proper debate because, without any rational analysis, his ideas are automatically dubbed extremist, idiotic, cold-hearted, sexist, homophobic and racist. With such epithets hurled at a student daily, one’s sense of freedom to pursue rational inquiry is greatly diminished.
So, what is a conservative Brown student supposed to do? Give up his sense of morality? Abandon his principles? Accept bad ideas as good? Give in to get ahead?
Exactly the opposite.
Guided by their values and desire for truth, conservative students should be more assertive in defining and shaping their ideas. Non-conformist ideas and beliefs should not be merely tolerated, made politically taboo or mockingly toyed with. Students should think deeper, reject indoctrination and question their presumptions and premises. The Ray Kelly incident served as a case in point that minority opinions here are simply not respected.
The majoritarians at Brown need to respect minority opinions and promote the spirit of free inquiry. As the father of liberalism, John Stuart Mill, put it, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Scott Lloyd is a Brown staff member and believes Rhode Island should have zero sales taxes.
ADVERTISEMENT
