Mr. Maxwell’s English Class, my junior year in high school – I sat second from the front, up against the cinder block wall that ran down the right-hand side of the classroom. The discussion that day centered around the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. Mr. Maxwell pondered aloud, “surely, we should make exceptions for Nazis or the KKK. Nobody here believes those groups should be free to speak their minds, do they?” Crickets. I knew Mr. Maxwell’s approach to fishing and simply did not wish to play that day. He continued after a short pause, “Good, so we’re all agreed. Nobody here believes in freedoms for Nazi’s or white supremacists. I just want to be sure before we move on, nobody, right?”
“Ah, what the Hell,” I thought. I slowly raised my hand. All eyes in the classroom turned to me as Mr. Maxwell sharpened his questioning. “Shawn, you’d support Nazis and the KKK being able to parade down Main Street with their uniforms and white hoods and all.” In a bored, unemotional tone, I simply responded, “Yes.”
“You support extermination and lynching of certain religions or races,” Mr. Maxwell stated as much as he questioned.
“No”
“That’s what you just said! Everybody heard you.” Mr. Maxwell panned the classroom with his eyes, “didn’t everyone just hear Shawn say he supported religious persecution and racial cleansing?”
“That’s not what I said.” I had decided I wanted to make him work for it.
Mocking me with laughter, Mr. Maxwell asked incredulously, “how can you deny what you just said here in front of 20 other students – that you support Nazis and the KKK?”
The silence defined the nervous tension building in the room. Nobody likes confrontational rhetoric – a topic for another day. I knew this was not that. My classmates apparently had not yet caught on.
Now, this all took place in high school back before I had a temper. “I most definitely do not support the Nazis or the KKK, or any group that inflicts their will on others through violence and intimidation. I do, however, support all those subject to the US Constitution in their rights to assemble peacefully and to speak publicly about their beliefs in a non-violent and non-incendiary manner. There of course will always be a big gray area between speech that demonstrates the level of passion driving it versus speech meant purposefully to incite violence and unrest. Once we begin to afford ‘rights’ to one portion of the population but not to others, they are no longer rights, but privileges extended and revoked by those in power.” Mr. Maxwell turned his head such that I was likely the only person able to see the smirk that had emerged on his face. I just nodded with an unspoken “glad to help out.”
Before readers expect me to start to describe rays of sunshine and choirs singing in the background, I readily admit that taking such a position is hard. I have failed spectacularly on more than one occasion to honor others’ beliefs in a position so far from my own. Respectful disagreement and discussion of opposing viewpoints remain daily goals.
A YouTube video that popped up in my feed recently prompted my recollection of the above memory. The video briefly mentioned the American Civil Liberty Union’s (ACLU) defense of the Ku Klux Klan. While many, perhaps mistakenly, view the ACLU solely as a legal bulldog for the left, the group actually defends the protections offered by the Bill of Rights for groups from the extreme left to the extreme right and everywhere in-between. From organizing supports such as the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee (LCDC) during the civil rights movement in the 1960’s , to legal and social supports for the Black Lives Matter Movement, the ACLU earned its reputation as defender against racial injustice and advocate for equal rights for all. But, as an exceptional article appearing in the Washington Post pointed out, advancing social justice sometimes requires defending rights for groups such as the KKK, white supremacists, and, yes, even that of Nazis.
In the latter part of the 1970’s, Skokie, Illinois housed a sizeable Jewish population of which one in every six members was a Holocaust survivor or directly related to one. “Not surprising” characterizes community members’ and public officials’ opposition to a Nazi group’s plans to hold a parade-like demonstration in the community. Skokie officials denied permits, filed lawsuits, and employed just about every lawful means at their disposal to prevent the Nazi gathering. The Anti-Defamation League emerged in an adversarial capacity relative to the ACLU. The Village of Skokie ultimately solicited help from the the United States Department of Justice, who played a role perhaps best described as negotiator. While too involved for a adequate representation here. the legal director of the ACLU’s Illinois Affiliate, David Goldberger, a Jewish-American, wrote an engaging article about his experiences in defending the Nazi’s right to free speech and freedom to assemble.
Similar to the more recent outcry and protest of William and Mary College students to the ACLU defense of white supremacists’ freedom to assemble in Charlottesville, Virginia, public sentiment at the time of the Skokie case led ACLU officials to wrestle with the seemingly contradictory positions of protecting the concepts within the Bill of Rights for groups that the ACLU perhaps would prefer exercise those rights to a much lesser extent.
The conclusion: the price of my being able to stand by my own convictions in advocating for the Black Lives Matter movement, LGBTQ+ rights, and other social justice related topics is defending the rights of those with opposing views to peacefully express and advocate positions to which I passionately object.
As Michael Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, states in what is perhaps my favorite scene from my favorite movie of all time:
For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is ‘Why aren’t you, Bob?’ Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you’re smarter than I am, because I didn’t understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Aaron Sorkin’s, The American President (1985).
Warner Brothers.
“So, Shawn, you promote flag burning?” … “That’s not what I said. If that’s what you heard, you’ve missed the point.”
