In the past month, we have witnessed two men victimized because of things they have said. Because they have exercised their right to speech, they were targeted by the power that attempted to silence them.

However, rather than being political dissidents or protesters, these men were Don Imus and Tom Monaghan.

Don Imus made racially insensitive comments on air about the Rutgers woman’s basketball team. He subsequently lost his job as a broadcaster.

Closer to home, Tom Monaghan faced the protests of a great deal of Elon students and faculty, for his unpopular views about reproductive, female and homosexual rights. They justified their views on the grounds that as a school that promotes diversity, Elon shouldn’t invite speakers who have unpopular views about certain lifestyles. Never mind that Monaghan was asked to speak about business, not his political or social views.

Is this not hypocritical?

Does this nebulous term “diversity” only include that which we deem worthy? One should hope not.

We see this problem everywhere. In an effort to encourage diversity, we become politically correct. We become so politically correct, that anything that diverges from that ideal becomes anathema. Any dissent from what is seen as “decent” or “correct” is quickly limited. Americans don’t like opposition.

“Diversity,” which has become the progressive rallying cry, is nothing more than furthering the belief’s of one group and the tearing down of another. Diversity now means censorship, not diversity.

Yes, Elon should encourage diversity, not just those viewpoints we agree with but those we find distasteful and disagreeable.

To protect free speech, to protect our own viewpoints, we must protect that speech which we hate, which we cannot rationalize.

It is easy to maintain our belief’s when we have no one challenging them. It is much harder when we listen to someone speak who we disagree with in totality.

Elon students and faculty should not think that they have a right to demand that Monaghan not speak in front of the business school.

If we truly hold free speech and diversity as sacred as we say we do, then we need not call for the censorship of people whose views are unpopular.

By demanding that Monaghan not speak, we censor him not for his business ethics, but his personal beliefs.

Censorship, even progressive leadership in the name of diversity, is still censorship. All are allowed to speak, not just those we agree with.

Free speech encompasses all forms of speech, great, small, offensive or innocuous. We do not have the right to tell someone that their views are wrong, that their speech holds no value. We have the right to disagree.

It is a sad state of affairs that those who presume to advocate equal rights should attempt to deny others those rights they themselves seek.

Our nation is not predicated on the belief that any view is right or acceptable. Edward R. Murrow, why covering the Army-McCarthy hearings stated, “We must not mistake dissent for disloyalty.”

Perhaps we should not mistake diversity for mere censorship.

Opinion Editor: Bryan Ray - 05/03/07