Loading ...« GA Federation Spotlight, Part II: Goals and Upcoming Events | Home | We love free speech…unless it’s from a Republican »
CR Composition Corner: Controversial topics critical to hold an intellectual debate
By rawhide | October 19, 2007
Written by John Cunningham, an officer in the Bowdoin College Republicans, for the Bowdoin Orient.
Galileo did not promote intellectually stimulating debate. That is the conclusion a certain liberal student’s logic on why the Bowdoin College Republicans (BCR) should not invite far right speakers draws. In a debate with a conservative student and me, said liberal student asserted that if a speaker promotes a highly controversial message, he does not encourage intellectually stimulating debate on issues. In fact, those speakers tend to silence conflicting opinions. Pointing to Dinesh D’Souza and a speaker who criticized the Vagina Monologues, the aforementioned liberal, perhaps accurately, reminded us that the BCR historically sponsors speakers with radical messages. Ergo, goes his logic, the BCR discourages, even tries to stifle, constructive political debate. Though I find it hard to believe that D’Souza could quash debate at liberal Bowdoin, let’s consider the following reductio ad absurdum.
If a speaker promotes a controversial message, then he discourages intellectually stimulating debate. Galileo promoted the idea that the earth revolved around the sun in the 1600s; a then-controversial message. Ergo, Galileo did not promote intellectually stimulating debate. More recently, the suffragettes and the desegregationists, according to said liberal’s logic, did not promote intellectually stimulating debate. Perhaps this liberal is right, and those progressives were only concerned with, in the immortal words of Buffalo Springfield, “singing songs and carrying signs.” But perhaps he’s not.
Perhaps highly controversial speakers promote intellectually stimulating debate. Comfort-zone dialogue hardly demands that we look beyond the boundaries of our current conception of the world. Rational, supported expressions of radical thought, on the other hand, demand we either consider the merits of our own views, or reject the radical ideas without consideration. When we explore radical beliefs, we test the foundations of a thought, as opposed to picayune details of policy. Heated, passionate argument may seem fruitless, but is that not better than no discussion? Radical thought, at its worst, will still triumph over total moderation in sparking intellectual dialogue.
But to flatly reject sound arguments is to fail as a student of the liberal arts. We will soon be the architects of America, but we will fail to construct a better world if we scorn radical thought and refuse to challenge our beliefs. Anwar Al Sadat, former president of Egypt, wisely said: “He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress.” Only through radical thought can we best stir ourselves from intellectual complacency, and only through a tolerance of radical thought and debate born from radical views can we hope for progress.
Topics: CR Composition Corner |
