Every year the issue of censorship seems to arise. Last year, students boycotted an anti-V-day event. It was quite effective and attendance at the event was sparse. As of late, a call for censorship seems to have surfaced within the Orient's articles, and I feel it is worth discussing again. An attitude of boycott or censorship is arguably one of the biggest potential weaknesses of current liberal arts institutions.
Anytime something is boycotted, knowledge decreases. It is a utilitarian principle. Generally, if we do not hear the opposing side of an argument, we do not analyze it. If we never truly consider something, we are unable to figure out for ourselves what is true, best, or right. Then we end up with the same ideas as the majority, those in power, or our parents. History demonstrates that the majority, as well as those in power, often err. In addition, when alternative viewpoints are not discussed, we end up lacking the ability to fully articulate and comprehend our own viewpoints because we assume them correct in their unchallenged state. How can one really understand something unless one possesses the ability to defend his or her position?
At this point I imagine that one might argue, "But some arguments are sooo stupid that they are not even worth bringing up." Point taken. However, consider the following psychology study: Students listened to a panel of experts who all agreed on a fairly clear cut topic and were later given a test on the material. Another group of students listened to a panel of experts which included one dissenting opinion. The students who were forced to listen to an opposing stance did much better on the test than the students who did not have to listen to the lone dissenter. When we hear both sides of a debate, we process the information on a deeper level. Consequently, we are able to better retain it.
Before spring break, Alex Locke '10 responded to senior Zach Linhart's article regarding the cause of global warming. She concluded, "This would never be printed in a major newspaper, and I hope for the sake of the credibility of the opinion section that the staff looks more closely at these articles in the future." I am not 100-percent certain what Locke is suggesting. However, I assume, as did other readers with whom I spoke, that she meant look more closely, and then don't print it. If I am wrong about this presumption, I apologize. However, these remarks support a selection process that would adversely affect the amount of information available to Orient readers.
Regarding the article under criticism, I read it, was intrigued, and learned something. The next week, I opened up the Orient opinion section, and learned a lot more about the issue from Professor Battle. I would not have known any of the information if Linhart's article were never printed, and the subsequent discourse ensued. I was forced to evaluate both sides of the debate and think for myself who had the best argument. Even if an article is not fit for a major newspaper (let's face it, how many college pieces are?), I implore the editors to print it. I want to know, and I want to know both sides.
I do not want to go through my college career only being spoon-fed that which the majority believes, regardless of how absurd the opposing viewpoint may seem. Gottfried Leibniz, a 17th-century philosopher, thought that the atoms of our universe are worlds of themselves, and our world is an atom of another. A ridiculous thought? Sure. Interesting to think about? Sure. We read about it in class because we are fully capable of testing out of the box theories. Then again, every once in a while one of those "absurd" thoughts, such as Copernicus's idea that the earth revolves around the sun, turns out to be true.
In a few years, I will probably no longer read the Bowdoin Orient on a weekly basis. I will probably substitute it with a major publication, most likely a biased one. It will presumably lack the color of the Orient's opinion section. Psychological studies suggest that I will be learning less from them as I only absorb one side. At that point, I will probably be too lazy, not have the time or energy, or be too set in my ways to consider anything else. Not printing an article for the sake of the "credibility" of the newspaper opens Pandora's box to censorship of minority viewpoints. Everyone knows the death penalty is wrong; therefore it is not even worth discussion. Stem cell research would benefit mankind so much it would be pointless to talk about the moral dilemmas involved. That is not the attitude of a student. We are here to learn as much as possible, and the opinion section of the Orient should be dedicated to a presentation of a spectrum of ideas, challenging us to rethink our pet preconceptions.