News
Penny Pritzker Says She Has ‘Absolutely No Idea’ How Trump Talks Will Conclude
News
Harvard Researchers Find Executive Function Tests May Be Culturally Biased
News
Researchers Release Report on People Enslaved by Harvard-Affiliated Vassall Family
News
Zusy Seeks First Full Term for Cambridge City Council
News
NYT Journalist Maggie Haberman Weighs In on Trump’s White House, Democratic Strategy at Harvard Talk
To the editors:
In the current controversy about English poet Paulin’s controversial views and his right to speak here ( News, “Poet Flap Drew Summers’ Input,” Nov. 14 ), two small points seem to be lost upon many of us. First, all I know of these “hateful views” are what his antagonists have to say about them, and second, my own right to hear a speaker and make my own judgment has been abridged by those who would “protect” our tender sensibilities from an encounter with the controversial. It is not Paulin who is deprived; it is we who are denied the right of a University citizenship to decide for ourselves. No argument of analogy, moral or otherwise, is a sufficiently acceptable substitute for participation in a real argument. I associate myself with the views on this particular point of Professors Dershowitz, Fried and Tribe, and think it a sad day for our “Republic of Letters” when we cannot hear that which we are likely to disagree. Who next will be deemed to be “controversial,” and by whom? Surely we can and must do better than this.
Peter J. Gomes
Nov. 19, 2002
The writer is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.