The recent events in Paris have shocked nations worldwide. Last week, 12 Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were killed because they used their right of free expression.
This tragedy speaks to many narratives. A Muslim police officer was killed by the radical gunmen. The officer gave his life to protect the newspaper that satirized and mocked his religion.
The cartoonists have become martyrs for the free expression of opinions and freedom of the press. This strikes a chord with Americans because our right to free expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The world community united in support of these freedoms and the slain cartoonists. Just recently, the cover of The New Yorker featured the Eiffel Tower topped with a red-tipped pencil. The whole concept that the pen is mightier than a sword is a powerful one.
In a similar show of solidarity, students on social media have expressed their solidarity by declaring, “Je Suis Charlie.”
While these cartoonists are heroes and the world community should rally behind the idea of a free press, we should not kid ourselves: A newspaper like Charlie Hebdo could not survive a single day on an American university campus.
We are right to tout our rights and freedoms in the wake of horrific events. But what we don’t talk about are the things that come with free expression and having a free press: the freedom to offend and the freedom to disagree. A common misconception about freedom is that it creates peace and harmony. On the contrary: freedom gives way to disagreements, contentions and conflicts. And these disagreements, contentions and conflicts are some of things that are being contested on college campuses.
The American college campus has become so politically correct that a publication like “Charlie Hebdo” would immediately be scrutinized and shut down the day it went to print. The creators of the publication would be denounced as hateful, spiteful, bigoted, close-minded, backwards and every other derogatory adjective there is.
The vanilla-satirical publication The Crocodile on campus would not dare to truly offend a campus administrator or sketch a cartoon lambasting a religion for fear of the resulting criticism coming from the students that supposedly value a free press.
Not too long ago, campuses were in the middle of a few controversies. For starters, during last year’s Spring graduations, many commencement speakers were disinvited to the ceremonies.
Among the disinvited speakers were Condoleezza Rice, disinvited for her roles in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who now criticizes religion; and International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde because she allegedly put policies in place that hurt poor countries. If campuses won’t allow these people to speak, do you honestly think they will allow people to sketch, write or even say anything offensive?
Then, of course, was the trigger-warning controversy. These warnings, put in place by Oberlin College in particular, are meant to inform students that reading a certain book could offend some people. For example, the novel “Things Fall Apart” would “trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide,” and much more. This politically correct and offense-free policy was approved by the students of Oberlin. Can someone honestly think that Oberlin would support a campus publication featuring a crude rendering of the prophet Muhammad?
New York Times columnist David Brooks is right to note that, “Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.”
Until this country, and college students in particular, realize this, “Nous Ne Sommes Pas Charlie.”
Michael Beato is a UF economics junior.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 1/15/2015 under the headline “Political correctness limits free speech"]
