As it turns out, “We are accepting!” is a mantra that can be as much a barrier as an affirmative statement. Following a poorly-received incident at commencement a few years back, the Whitman faculty quietly decided that content of overtly religious nature should be banned from official college events, which most noticeably includes commencement and convocation.

Invited speakers are barred from discussing religion even at the baccalaureate service, the traditionally religious sending-off for the graduating senior class. Though the religious counselor, for example, is exempt from the policy, the general effect of the rule is the imposition of conformity and a noticeable lack of diverse voices.

There was a time when a ban like this would not particularly concern me. Like most people, I claimed that there were valid reasons for content to be censored. To assert that all censorship is categorically inappropriate seemed to enter dangerous waters, where one’s sailing mates are revealed to be extremists and fanatics who revel in their so-called “right” to sling libel, rancor and hatred.

Indeed, this was the very position that I found myself supporting after Salman Rushdie visited Whitman and gave a speech decrying censorship. At the time, I was angered at Rushdie’s claims that there could never be a valid reason for censorship.

One way to defeat communication that we find unwholesome is to censor it. But this path is difficult to navigate and is full of contention and arbitrary application of force.

What I had missed before was the better option.

Censorship aims to eliminate the damage that can be done with words, but in doing so it damages one of the most precious gifts we have: our ability to share our thoughts, opinions and values with one another.

The damage can be eliminated in a different way: by changing the way that we receive others’ thoughts, opinions and values. Rather than trying to change others, we can change the way that we receive their opinions through critical reflection and a re-affirmation of our own beliefs.

If those who preach hatred or ignorance are not allowed to gain foothold in our mind, then there is no need for censorship.

If we can learn to think critically and reject those ideas and opinions that are not beneficial to us, we will have learned a far more important skill than merely the ability to gag, deface or burn.

Censorship attempts to protect but actually harms. Real protection can only come through careful, deliberative thought and a critical engagement with the doctrines to which we are, and always will be, subjected.

Regarding Whitman’s gag order against religious content at official functions, then, I must express disappointment. While I personally prefer there to be no religious content at these functions, this preference does not entitle me to force another to be muted.

To approach the situation as a violation of my rights not to have to listen is to act with the utmost selfishness and egotism.

It is utter hypocrisy to silence the people that one finds irritating, offensive or just plain wrong, and yet to proclaim loudly one’s own openness and acceptance. Acceptance does not mean shouting “I am open to your views!” so loudly that another cannot express him or herself.

Acceptance means providing a space for all, and most especially for those with whom you have the deepest disagreement.
Character and responsibility, two of the tenets of Whitman’s mission statement, demand nothing less than the complete rejection of censorship alongside an increased capacity for reasoned, critical judgment and engagement.

The best place to start is at home. Let’s shed our hypocrisy.