Yesterday, my small town newspaper published a letter from a resident complaining about the “negative people” in town who have been submitting letters to the editor detailing their observations of shortsighted, disenfranchising, corrupt governance. Yesterday’s letter did not contain an attempt to debate the facts, discuss the issues, or provide an evidence-based alternative perspective. Instead the solution put forward read like this: “I am sick of (these people). If you don’t like the town please feel free to move. I know lots of people who feel this would be a good thing.” The letter writer bolstered her credentials with the statement that she has been in town for thirty years.
Those who have “been here longer” frequently assert that the best way to fix endemic, systematic problems is for those who don’t like it to leave, as if in the next town, or state, or country there is an oasis of civilization that is impervious to any form of improvement and as though longevity ought to be the litmus test for assuming a special authority to judge who is eligible to speak up.
The “it’s good enough for me, so it ought to be good enough for you” statement is myopic, selfish, and not in keeping with the historical evolution of our country.
Enshrined in our nation’s First Amendment are six specific rights. Most people can quickly name two: freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In fact, the “freedom of religion” is not one, but two distinct freedoms: freedom from the government establishing a religion and freedom to free exercise whatever religion you choose. In addition to those popularly known three, some folks will also be able to name the freedom of the press. Very few think of either our First Amendment right to peaceably assemble or the right of the citizens to petition the government to redress grievances.
Letters to the editor are a powerful way of illustrating the blending of many of our First Amendment rights. When Citizen X brings to light how her municipal governing board appears to be in colluding with private developers in closed-to-the-public executive session meetings, that same board may not tell the newspaper it may not publish the letter. When Citizen Y points out how the governing board failed to appoint to most qualified volunteers to serve the community, that same board may not quash his freedom of speech by strong-arming the newspaper. And when Citizen Z brings forward a petition to safeguard the most vulnerable citizens from health hazards, that board may not tell the press to bury the story.
However, when an editor opts to publish a letter wherein Citizen Q, in essence, states “love it or leave it,” the press is entering into murky water. Citizen Q’s sentiment is only a shade of gray away from telling blacks to go back to Africa, demanding that women get back into the kitchen, including a “need not apply” list in a hiring ad, or advocating that marriage, parenting, or gender be defined in one particular “traditional” way.
When the press publishes what amounts to an indictment of those who speak up against the “Old Boys Club,” it does a true disservice to the encouragement of open and thoughtful discussion about the issues that affect all citizens. The publication of these sorts of letters may chill public discourse by potentially making those dissenters feel as if their ideas are unwelcome, or worse, endorsing the marginalizing sentiment that dissenters are not like the rest “of us” who are perfectly happy with how our government is functioning.
The structure of our government relies upon the diversity of opinions to guide representational democracy. Just because if works for you, doesn’t mean that everyone is being heard, included, or respected. Just because you ate yesterday doesn’t change the reality that starvation exists.
To Citizen Q who has invited those dissenters to leave, I will remind you that this is not what America is about. And to the editor who thought that publishing Citizen Q’s ugly invitation was worthwhile, it wasn’t.