OPINION:
The students at Yale Law School and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine have recently given us a peek into the troubled relationship that some have with free speech.
Let’s start with the Russians. The Russian military has underperformed in Ukraine. They have suffered substantial losses of vehicles, armored vehicles (including tanks), aircraft, mortars, etc. Desertions are commonplace; logistics have been a mess.
They have been unable to establish air dominance, and, as a consequence, have shelled cities more or less indiscriminately, in an effort to kill Ukrainians and break their will to resist. These attacks, which have included targeted civilians, are essentially war crimes and will eventually result in someone being held accountable.
A war that was supposed to be over in a week has now dragged on for a month, with no end in sight. If things don’t change, it’s possible that the Russians, or their elites, will take action against the regime.
It is now obvious that Mr. Putin went to war thinking that he had one kind of army and has discovered he has an altogether different kind of army. That is no doubt because his officer corps lied to him about the army’s capabilities.
Because the regime in Russia does not value free and truthful speech, it did not and does not get any free and truthful speech from those officers who could have warned them about the impending disaster. The failure to protect free, direct and truthful speech eroded Russia’s ability to win on a battlefield, made Russians poorer and more isolated, and may eventually cost the senior leadership of the regime their lives.
In a similar (although less immediately lethal) vein, a couple of weeks ago the Federalist Society hosted a panel discussion at Yale Law School. The discussion featured two speakers, one from the left and one from the right side of the political spectrum. The topic was, ironically, civil liberties.
You can guess what happened. Law students who didn’t care for the speakers or their organizations or whatever essentially made it impossible for the speakers to speak or take questions, or both. Like children, protesters literally stomped their feet and yelled so the speakers could not be heard.
More ominously, 60% of the law school’s student body signed a letter subsequent to the event with the usual propaganda about marginalization and what not. While it is clear that there was a campaign mounted to pressure law students into signing the letter, one would hope that those attending one of the better law schools in the nation would be able to resist such nonsense.
What binds these events — Russian military underperformance and Yalies engaging in performative protests — is a contempt for the worth of individuals.
Free speech is a natural consequence of the notion that each individual has value, that they are more than cogs in the machine that is society. They have their own spark of divine fire. We believe in free speech primarily because we believe in the autonomy and free will of the individual.
The protesters at Yale and the leaders of the Russian regime clearly do not believe in any of that. There are people, evidently, who should not be heard, whether they are members of an officer corps whose opinions are dangerous to the regime and therefore must be suppressed, or speakers at a school who opinions are dangerous and therefore must be suppressed.
There are also practical considerations to free and direct speech.
It is only through free and open expression that we can hear, consider and account for the opinions, beliefs and sentiments of others. Free speech leads to a more peaceful society because all sides have a chance to be heard. History is pretty clear: The choice is not between free speech or silence; the choice is between free speech or violence.
If some members of society are not allowed to express themselves through traditional channels, they will eventually find less peaceful, more physical and more destructive ways of expressing themselves, especially in a society (like ours) that is heavily armed.
We also believe in free speech — including the ability to speak your mind without undue fear of economic or social sanction — because it is the only way vital information can be transmitted. Suppression or obstruction of speech leads directly to suboptimal results. That’s true whether you are thinking about invading a country, building a business or trying to improve your own life.
The presidential election that is heading toward us in 2024 is going to be about who can best defend and preserve the American way of life. The defense of free, open and direct speech is going to be an important part of that contest.
Choose wisely.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is the co-host of “The Unregulated” podcast. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.