Events of the day are reminding me of the day I received a “D” on a college paper. The subject was “Communism.”  I was attending the University of Missouri- St. Louis at the time, back in 1977. I was taking a class on “Communism,” because I decided that it important to be knowledgeable about a political theory that I often heard about, but didn’t understand. The class was taught by three teachers. One of them indicated that she was, in no uncertain terms, “a communist.” I was a straight A student at UMSL; I mention this only because it provides context to this story. I should also mention that I enjoyed the class. It stimulated me to think. Reading the actual words of Karl Marx helped me to appreciate that he had genuine passionate concerns for the mistreatment of workers. He worked hard to construct what he believed to be a better political system to protect workers.

The “Communist” teacher assigned a reading and required us to write a paper, which I did. I expressed my concerns that a communist system, though well-intentioned, would not work because it didn’t provide some necessary incentives. It was a short paper, about 6 or 7 pages. I received a “D,” with the comment that I didn’t show that I understood Marx, but I could re-write and re-submit. I decided to re-write. I’m not proud of what I then did, but I fully understand why.  For my re-write I handed in a glowing uncritical tribute to communism. I still have the rewrite and one of my ending sentences was this: “The way of communism, for Marx, presents the opportunity of a better life for the individual and for society as a whole.” This same teacher gave me an “A-” on this rewrite, with this comment: Why has no communist society been able to achieve what Marx proposed?” I was tempted to respond: “For that answer see my FIRST paper!” I didn’t respond, though. I moved on, tarnished by my intellectual dishonesty.

This turned out to be a formative experience for me. I sometimes think of this bad grade when I hear of students and teachers who are being chilled or reprimanded for asking sincere questions, positing hard-to-hear facts or formulating arguments against any form of orthodoxy or ideology. If we don’t allow free speech in classrooms, including the free expression of views that some people consider unpopular or even offensive, we will turn our classrooms into churches. I am well-tuned to detect oppressive religious dogma that parades in intellectual clothing. I spent much of my childhood blunting my well-intentioned father’s attempts to save my soul by urging me to say absurd things.  I never gave in, and my upbringing helped to forge me into the analytical and skeptical person that I am. I embrace free speech and critical skepticism as an important way to understand things that confuse me, and I’ve often stayed the course as others get angry with me instead of discussing facts and opinions that they consider “dangerous.” Hence, the name of my website, “Dangerous Intersection.” As Carl Sagan wrote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”  Indeed.

The willingness to grapple with threatening ideas is strong good medicine for developing the kinds of human beings who I trust. Uncritically adopting a slogan or a platitude is not the same thing as thinking and doing this should never be tolerated as “education.”  It is also important to make sure that everyone speaks up because the otherwise chilled speech might be the majority opinion of the group. Or it might be a small minority opinion which will someday become revered as great wisdom. Once we are well-informed, all of us need to speak up, especially when it seems scary. It’s for these reasons that I wrote this post on the classic social science experiments of Soloman Asch: “Why you need to be the one to speak up.” It’s for this reason that I have been hammering on free speech issues of late.