Throughout history, the argument has been made that the appeal to sentiment has been the reigning mode of persuasion when it comes to the populace. While we franchise ourselves as being beasts of rationality, in reality, the majority of our decisions — either in a private or public arena — while shrouded in a thin veil of reason, are products of sentiment.
While these generalizations have their inconsistencies — and we all should steer clear of generalizations — such action was alive and well at Tuesday’s press conference regarding Richard Berthold’s job and his comments on the attack on the Pentagon.
The controversy regarding Berthold is his, or anyone’s, right to freedom of speech and when and where it becomes problematic.
The press conference as an objective, logical discourse on the fundamental values and restraints of the First Amendment was a failure. However, the press conference as an exercise in emotional manipulation and factual evasion was a success. I bring this point up in light of the speeches that were delivered as to why Berthold should resign, made by key policy makers Rep. Rob Burpo, Rep. William Fuller and Regent Richard Toliver.
In essence, the hinge of each speaker’s argument was the fact that many people have died for the free speech Berthold claims to be protected under, and since his remarks have utter and repugnant disregard for these people, he should not be able to continue as a professor at UNM.
I cite Toliver’s lengthy enumeration of American casualties of war for the First Amendment as evidence.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
That people have died protecting our freedom of speech does not imply that it is unconstitutional to speak with utter disdain for the government, for the people who run it or in favor of those who attack it. If it is appropriate to cite the loss of life when talking about our freedom of speech, we should say that those lives were lost for the rights of the people who hold the government in contempt just as much as they were for the people who wholeheartedly support it.
But let me make myself clear when I say that in no way do I condone or agree with Berthold’s comments, but to call ourselves Americans, and to uphold the fundamental freedoms that this nation was founded on, his inalienable right of free speech must not be muted. Liberty is the freedom of the people from the very government which they are a part of.
In using the loss of American life as an argument to censure Berthold, or anyone who may have said something similar, Toliver, Fuller and Burpo lack an understanding of the First Amendment and its consequences.
One of Fuller’s reasons for seeking Berthold’s termination was a bit more sensible in that he didn’t have a problem with Berthold saying “anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote,” but he did take exception to Berthold saying it as a professor, in a state funded institution.
Now this is complex. Does freedom of speech exist for those within the government, or part of an institution funded by the government, only insofar as these people’s voices ascribe to the government’s agenda?
The only reason Berthold is under scrutiny right now is purely because his statements are repulsive to the general sentiment currently held in our country. They are repulsive to me.
But I take Fuller’s comments to mean that it is the duty of all professors to keep personal opinions and dogmas out of their teachings in order to provide a balanced and untainted education for the student body.
However, if Berthold said “God bless America” — even in the classroom — his personal opinion would still be blatantly obvious, but not antagonistic to the collective sentiment of our nation’s citizens or its policy makers.
Hence, this controversy would be nonexistent. This is why Berthold must be protected under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment cannot be overturned in the face of circumstance — no matter how reprehensible or inappropriate Berthold’s comments were. It is, and must be an immutable and ironclad marker of freedom.
Again, let me reiterate when I say that I find Berthold’s comments to be the lowest intelligence and sensitivity, but he has already apologized.
In seeking his termination or resignation, Fuller, Toliver and Burpo may cause a slippery slope of faltering civil liberties in the face of our unwavering Constitution.
by Sim¢n Trujillo
Daily Lobo Guest Columnist
