March 9, 1990
Page 3
OPINION
ij.
A\S 1 w6G
iDr. WD White
some ways, our Southern
tradition of social politeness
and refined sensibility
makes this struggle even
more problematical. It is dif
ficult for persons coming
from Southern roots to en
gage in critical scrutiny of the
community without being
understood as disruptive, or
without being interpreted as
having some personal axe to
grind. In a small, tightly-knit
institution like St. Andrews,
to create and sustain an
open community of free and
critical inquiry becomes
even more difficult .if only
because we live so closely
together, know each other
so well, and care so deeply
for one another.
But persons v/ho speak
English, whether they fully
realize it or not, stand in a
long tradition that insists
upon free, open, self-critical
scrutiny and inquiry. As
early as the 17th century,
John Milton, speaking out of
his learned Christian hu
manism, argues persua
sively that such freedoms
are intrinsicto, and indispen-
sible for any civilization
committed to ordered free
dom. In his Areopagitica
Milton attacks legal censor
ship of the press, arguing on
historical, ideological, and
pragmatic levels that cen
sorship of any kind is inimi
cal to human liberty, and an
attack on human personality
itself.
In the 19th century, John
Stuart Mill (one of the few
Englishmen of note who
never had to examine his
religion, having grown up
indepedent of any religion),
argued on essentially utili
tarian grounds for the same
notions of freedom. In his
On Liberty Mill analyzes the
social and personal utility of
freedom to think, freedom to
express, and freedom to act
in all self-affecting ways. He
argues that if a society does
not naturally develop a self-
critical principle, it must in its
own self-interest foster one.
These principles of indi-
vidual'freedom to inquire, to
think, to express, to publish-
-these notions of ordered lib
erty intrinsic to full human-
ness-are also captured in
and reflected by the United
States Constitution, particu
larly in the Bill of Rights.
There these foundational
human rights are protected
from the intrusive power of
the State, however well-in
tentioned such intrusions. It
is no accident that it is in the
Anglo-Saxon world of
thought and sensibility that
the English-speaking pio
neers of Texas in their Dec
laration of Independence
from Mexico, declared "eter
nal freedom from the dual
tyranny of priest and sword”-
-the power of Church and
State over individual free
dom.
St. Andrews has from the
beginnning been committed
to these notions of respon
sible freedom-freedom to
learn, freedom to teach. We
have always actively sought
to develop a self-critical prin
ciple that keeps us alert
and on our toes. We have
tried to foster such a spirit
and tradition in the class
room, and in the social and
extra-curricular life of the
campus. When the great
state universities of North
Carolina were for years
under the "speaker ban"
law-which prohibited any
known Communist from
even speaking on the cam-
puses-St. Andrews was
one of the institutions that in
sisted upon free and open
inquiry of every kind.
I hope that those of us
concerned with the Hoss
controversy will re-read
Milton’s AREOPAGITICA
and Mill’s ON LIBERTY and
the BILL OF RIGHTS. And
that students who are of
fended by Hoss's column, or
dislike it in any way, will write
letters to the Editor, hold
public discussions and (if
they wish) demonstrations
and protests. That is, that
they will exercise their free
dom to argue and criticize in
every lawful way, and that
they will do so openly and
without apology. Only in this
way can we sustain a com
munity of inquiry and self-
critical scrutiny that rises
above personalities and
deals with questions of
substance and importance
to us all. This is the kind of
"ordered liberty " we can all
be proud of.
'Simpson Supports Hoss'
When I opened my study
door this morning I found in
an envelope a typed note
that read: "How can you
allow your eloquent column
to be printed in the same
newspaper along with Pat
Hoss's vile column
Hosstvie?
Please encourage the
Lance to drop Hosstvie from
its pages. Thank you.'' Th i s
was signed "Concerned
readers of the Lance."
1 was surprised by this
note, gratified that some
persons find my column
"eloquent," and pleased that
(even though it is in this case
negative) Hoss’s efforts
have elicited some spirited
response and commentary
on campus. I was also a bit
surprised that some readers
seem to have missed the
"hossing around" tone of
Hosstyle, taking it as more
than semi-tongue-in-cheek
satire. My first response
was to be somewhat
amused, and thento dismiss
the issue.
But on reflection I realized
that everything that happens
on a college campus is "grist
for the miH"-is an occasion
for serious reflection on
important questions. I want
to raise some of the ques
tions this incident joins.
The struggle to create and
sustain communities of self-
critical free inquiry is an an-
Dear Editor,
Anonymity has never been
a hallmark of the democratic
individual. Standing up for,
and most importantly,
standing by what one be
lieves in is one of the sup
posed characteristics of a
tme liberal rights demo
cratic person.
Our campus has wit
nessed a debasement of this
ideal through the anony
mous letters written with
the intent of censoring Pat
Hoss column, Hosstyle.
from the Lance. As a be
liever in antagonistic dis
course, I wholeheartedly
endorse Mr. Hoss' column
and to be totally candid, I
wry much enjoy reading it.
I wish more people had the
inclination to write critically
about campus issues.
For those meek and repug
nant individuals who wish
to stay unknowm and attack
Mr. Hoss' column from
under a rock, I have a few
words to relay.
First of all, the mere fact
that one is attempting to
censure another's freedom
to speak out is a direct slap
in the face of the liberal arts
tradition here at St. An
drews. This college thrives
on creating and molding
critical and analytical
minds, not pre-processed,
standardized normalic
mush. Dare I say that those
who w'ish to censure Mr.
Hoss' article should enroll
into some diploma mill
where critical thought is not
required? Of what use to
American society are these
meek and timid individuals
who are too afraid to make
themselves known? The
United States’ already apa
thetic and politically
hushed society does not
need more meek "sheep"
willing to accept any and
everything on face value.
American society calls out
for those individuals like
Mr. Hoss, who will dare to
expose the underside of
what some may consider
paradise, and do it with
conviction.
Secondly, I am quite
shocked at the subversive
nature with which these
people are going about this
issue. We, as mostly deon-
tological political
idealogues, incessantly
gripe about "secret police,"
the "clandestine police
state", and the unwarranted
usurpation of our rights.
One would have never
thought that such a subver
sive movement would have
gained momentum at this
college. 1 have always had
the notion that St. Andrews
was a haven for open and
scrutinizing dialogue. Sub
versive tactics aimed at cen
suring another is disheart
ening. Some acts demon
strate that the college com
munity has become compla
cent, stagnant and myopic. I
hope that this is not the case;
that only a group of way
ward minded individuals
are at the heart of this attack
on Mr. Hoss.
We have much to leam
from the articles such as Mr.
Hoss' Hosstvie and other
critical works that are pro
duced on campus (ie: 'Najl
"Um, public dialogues of
discontent, and open fo
rums). It teaches one every
thing has a different per
spective; that life is not set in
one normative mindset. We
cannot and should not live
in a myopic and clandestine
society. If such a commu
nity were allowed to thrive,
academic and personal free
doms would cease, and in
dividual rights would go
out of the window.
All in all, I believe that the
fervor over Mr. Hoss' col
umn has revealed to our
community a rather dis
turbing insight : that the
attitudes which give impe
tus to movements such as
the "skin-heads", the Klu
Klux Klan, PMRC and the
Nazi Party, are not as dis
tant from our community as
one may first think.
Bobby C. Simpson.