> It is CRITICAL that we derive the right message--and avoid deriving the wrong one--from Liz Magill's "voluntary" resignation. The wrong one is that universities like Penn need more restrictions of speech. The right one is that double standards will no longer be tolerated.
— Robert P George; Dec 9, 2023; <https://x.com/McCormickProf/status/1733606029814853830>

(Putting aside whether this guy is actually right about what lessons one should draw from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_States_Congress_hearing_on_antisemitism>, which was its own particular political event with its own background and logic...)

This is something I have regularly thought about, and about which you could make an infinite number of Steven⹀Kass-esque tweets. It's something like this:

In the general case, I'm a liberal (or, as the kids say, "libertarian"), so I don't think there should be "restrictions of speech" (for a specific meaning of that which isn't interesting to go into here).

And, because of the way the world is, usually how a breakdown of that principle cashes out is that "one side" controls some institution or whatever, that is otherwise supposed to be neutral, and then suppresses "the other side".

(The question of which institutions should be neutral is also an interesting one, but not worth getting into here. Honestly I think it's most of them, except for literal political organizations. But, again, that's a different question.)

And, it's a good question — it's a question sometimes brought up in bad faith, but it's a good question — if one side is being suppressed, should I also root for the other side to be suppressed? I mean, it seems fairer, which is a value, but aren't I against that restriction in the first place, and so should be displeased whenever it happens?

I think the most complete answer is that the "one side" only suppresses the "other side" at all because they know they can get away with it; that their side won't be suppressed as well. So allowing the asymmetry perpetuates the bad system. College professors would not support suppressing "conservative" speech on campus if it meant you could no longer talk about society at all — thus instantly putting many of them out of a job, and transforming the university into a different type of place entirely.

(Of course, I should note that (last I checked) most college professors don't support suppressing; and many don't talk about society. Although there does seem to be an interesting correlation between the two.)

Unless you can give that complete answer, you're open to charges of inconsistency, and will be a lot less convincing to the just people of the world. So, that's my contribution.