Pluralism can be messy, but defending it should be easy
It's simple: Pluralism means supporting the right to expression without endorsing the expression itself.
Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:
Agape A&M is a student-run organization at West Texas A&M University—a public university in Canyon, Texas—aiming to promote and communicate Christian values on campus and in the greater community. Agape has been recognized by the university as an official student organization for over a decade, and usually has about 20 active members.
Recently, Agape decided to host a charity event supporting a local ministry. The event would be a comedic retelling of famous stories from the Bible, featuring students acting in different roles. In its proposal, Agape promised the event would be a “harmless depiction of well-known stories from the Bible, aiming to communicate the timelessness of scripture in an entertaining way.”
Agape has hosted similar events before, although this particular event would be unique in its design. As a registered student organization, Agape is able to reserve space on campus provided the university calendar permits it. Based on scheduling, Agape decided to reserve a space at the end of March, a few days before Holy Week. The group followed all university protocols and procedures in preparing for this event.
However, after learning of the planned event, the president of West Texas A&M barred Agape A&M from hosting it. The president cited the divisive content of the event as reason for his denial, even appearing to acknowledge his decision would run afoul of First Amendment principles: “A harmless depiction of divisive and bigoted content? Not possible,” he said. “I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group, even when the law of the land appears to require it.”
If your first reaction to this is “How is this remotely legal?” then you’re thinking clearly. This is a clear case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, where a state actor restricts speech or expression solely due to the content of that speech or expression. The American judicial system has for decades declared viewpoint discrimination anathema to the First Amendment; otherwise, government officials could pick and choose what forms of speech to allow in a public setting, rendering the First Amendment relatively meaningless.
To be clear, the First Amendment does not prohibit government from regulating any kind of speech. Permits for events, regulations on the “time, place, and manner” of speech, and the like are generally allowed, provided these regulations are content neutral — that is, they treat all speech the same. Likewise, certain kinds of expression—such as obscenity1—are almost always fair game for regulation and prohibition.
While the aforementioned scenario is fictional, something very similar is unfolding at West Texas A&M. The university did in fact prohibit a student group from hosting a charity event on campus in support of a local nonprofit. But instead of the fictional “Agape A&M,” the group in question is Spectrum WT, a student organization existing to “provide a safe space for LGBT+ students and allies to come together.” And instead of the comedic retelling of Bible stories, the event in question is a “PG-13”2 drag show featuring members of the university community.
New York Times columnist—and punching bag of the post-2016 conservative movement—David French tweeted his support for this group and its lawsuit:
Not surprisingly, folks on the right—including some Christians, it seems—were displeased with French. One person wrote, “With ‘conservatives’ like this, who needs liberals?” One pastor wrote, “Won’t support a university president banning a drag show. Shocker.” And one writer sarcastically declared, “So much blessing of liberty it’s hard to handle.”
Meanwhile, at the university, some conservatives rallied to support the president’s decision, which he justified on the grounds that drag shows are offensive and demeaning to women.
If you were angry about the first scenario—and you should have been—but happy with the second, then you’re espousing a dangerous legal framework. If the government has the authority to prohibit expression simply because it finds said expression problematic, then it’s only a matter of time until that principle finds its way to your expression.3
This is not hypothetical. My colleague and I have ongoing research showing that support for constitutional rights is often dependent on support for the people claiming these rights. That is, if you don’t like a type of person, you’re less likely to think their rights claim is legitimate. And therein lies the problem: If constitutional rights aren’t universal and evenly applied to everybody, then they aren’t meaningfully concrete at all.
Broad support for constitutional rights does not require acceptance of diverging views. I would not attend an event like the one proposed by Spectrum WT. I would certainly not take my children, just as I wouldn’t take them to a “Drag Queen Story Hour” at my local library. I would, on the other hand, consider attending an event like the one sponsored by the fictional Agape A&M, and would certainly consider taking my kids with me, and to a similar event at our local library.
But these aren’t inconsistent positions. I can support the right of a group like Spectrum WT to hold their event while admitting that I wouldn’t attend it.
Pluralism means supporting the rights of those with whom we have fundamental and deep disagreements. It means extending the same constitutional protections and liberties we have to people and groups we nevertheless think are deeply mistaken and wrong. It means acknowledging differences among us in a diverse and free society. It means criticizing and debating ideas while refusing to suppress them with majority power. This isn’t a new way of thinking; it is foundational to the American political experiment.
I dedicate a chapter in Uneasy Citizenship to a Christian defense of pluralism and liberalism.4 Christians should support liberalism not just to respect our neighbors through government and politics, but as a way to safeguard our own rights and liberties as we become more and more of a cultural minority. I’d much rather live in a world where the government must generally permit expression of all kinds than one where it can prioritize and privilege some speech and speakers over others. The former may lead to cultural conflicts, but the latter will lead to state suppression of unpopular ideas and views.
And in a country where fewer and fewer people are identifying as Christians—and fewer still as Christians holding traditionally orthodox views on, say, sexuality and gender—Christians should be more focused on shoring up rights for minority viewpoints than using state power to restrict expression a majority finds objectionable.
Spectrum WT is not proposing forcing people to attend its charity event. It is not asking a public school to host the event in front of a captive audience of children. Rather, it asking for the ability to host an event featuring otherwise protected expression in accordance with state and university rules, something afforded to any other registered student organization on campus.
I may not like this event and the expression it promotes. But in a pluralist society governed by the First Amendment, whether I personally like certain expression is irrelevant to its protected status. And I, as an adherent of a faith tradition increasingly finding itself in the minority of American culture, am very thankful for this. Supporting First Amendment rights for everybody is the only way we—and I’m including my brothers and sisters in Christ here—can be confident in our advocacy for our own rights; if one group is lacking in constitutional protections, so too could we.
Pluralism can be (and often is) messy. But for Christians, defending it should be easy.
Defining obscenity is constitutional terms is difficult, but the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. California provides the clearest framework for determining whether speech or expression lacks constitutional protection.
In its legal complaint against the university, Spectrum WT made it clear that it had required participants to eschew lewd or sexually-explicit content at the event, even going as far as requiring performers to refrain from using music with profanity. Critics alleging that Spectrum WT’s event would still amount to unprotected obscenity have a difficult argument to make.
Unless, of course, you’re comfortable abandoning principles of free and limited government in favor of a one-sided authoritarian regime. If that’s the case, we probably need to have a longer conversation.
Not the contemporary political ideology often equated with “the left,” but rather the classical liberalism of limited government and individual rights.
Well said, Daniel. Your right. We should make the distinction, but still support free speech.