the May 2007 / Volume 3, Issue 4 / the-undercurrent.com

Undercurrent “It was as if an underground stream flowed through the country and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places.”

INSIDE The Moral case THIS ISSUE Freedom of Speech: for An Interview with Dr. Achieving the good requires protecting freedom, not enforcing sacrifice. page 3

by Noah Stahl In Defense of Income It is widely acknowledged that capitalist countries are the most successful at Inequality creating wealth and raising their citizens’ overall standard of living. People page 7 who live in such countries enjoy access to bigger homes, better-trained doctors, more advanced technology, and higher paying jobs. By contrast, those living under collectivist systems like the European welfare states often Essay endure long waits for poorer quality medical help and have far less choice in the things they buy and less money to buy them with. Studies like the Index of Economic Contest Freedom consistently find that higher measures of economic liberty correlate strongly with better page 7 standards of living: the freer people are, the richer they become. But in spite of all this, capitalism is criticized. Its detractors complain that it creates an unjust divide between rich and poor—or that employers don’t pay employees their rightful due—or that Speakers, Events, and the poor are “denied access” to basic needs like education, medical care, and retirement income. Meetings Even though the poor in capitalist countries enjoy far greater resources and opportunities than their counterparts in collectivist nations, critics denounce capitalism for allowing some people to page 8 (Continued on Page 2)

OBJECTIVISM The Undercurrent’s cultural commentary Campus Commentary On Free Speech is based on Ayn Rand’s , University Mission Statements: False . Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand’s fiction, is a systematic Promises or True Commitments? philosophy of life. To achieve their mission, universities must consistently uphold and It holds that the universe is orderly defend the principle of free speech. and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise by Kelly Cadenas his highest moral purpose, and that he Colleges and universities are identified as institutions committed flourishes only in a society that protects his to the pursuit of knowledge and the promotion of free speech. A university trains its students to think critically and encourages active individual rights. debate among them. It is a place where students can forge their own In these pages we hope to defend these conclusions and voice their individual viewpoints without fear of censure or reprisal. It is a place where they can communicate, debate, values. To learn more about the ideas and persuade one another. behind them, you can begin by reading Ayn This commitment to truth and free speech is expressed clearly in mission statements and welcome letters from university presidents. Harvard University’s mission statement, for Rand’s books, such as example, states that the university’s goal is to “[encourage] students to respect ideas and their and Atlas Shrugged, or by visiting free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought.” aynrand.org. But universities are not consistent in their written promises and commitments. For many years, universities have implemented so-called “speech codes” to punish and suppress (Continued on Page 5) 2 they recognized that one is rightfully proper for every individual to act in his entitled only to what he earns or gains by own interest. Under capitalism every The Moral Case voluntary consent from others—success human being is left free to pursue and enjoy and happiness are to be sought and earned, whatever type of life he can achieve to the for Capitalism not expropriated from others by force. In extent of his ability and determination. continued from Page 1 this sense, no one is “left behind” under He is free to offer his values in trade for capitalism: every individual has the same those of others, voluntarily and to mutual have more than others. unrestricted freedom to pursue what he benefit. He is free to keep everything he Before considering the merits of these needs and wants. earns or give it all away, according to his charges, we must ask: what is capitalism? Criticism of capitalism stems from own uncoerced judgment. Most would say that capitalism is the ethical ideal of , the idea that Under capitalism, the government’s synonymous with a of profit- morality consists of sacrificing for those in role is singular and crucial: the protection seeking companies. Although capitalism need. To selfishly pursue one’s own ends, of individual rights, i.e., of each man’s does institute free markets, the term on this view, is to shirk one’s moral duty to ability to act without being subject to fundamentally refers not to an economic others. Capitalism rebuffs this notion by physical force by others (or the threat system, but a political one. It is at root a upholding and protecting each individual’s thereof). Only such a system secures for system in which the government protects right to act in his own interests, in opposition everyone the freedom to direct their lives every citizen’s freedom to act in his own to those who demand he sacrifice his time, as they see fit—as such, it is the only moral interest. In practice, this means full freedom effort, wealth and happiness for others. social system. of action, so long as one’s actions do not The altruist morality is inherently anti- Yet capitalism is rarely defended on violate the rights of others. People are left capitalist because its implementation in moral grounds. Even conservatives, its free to pursue their chosen values, whether politics requires the violation of freedom. alleged supporters, do not defend its moral education, career, medicine, entertainment, Those who choose not to voluntarily goodness. Though they often advocate the hobbies, family, or none of the above—so sacrifice their interests for others must be free market as the most practical choice long as they respect the right of others to for creating wealth, their allegiance to do the same. In essence, capitalism is the religious altruism leads them to apologize system that existed in the free northern for capitalism’s implicit endorsement of states in the nineteenth century. (America self-interest. today is not a capitalist nation, but a system Under capitalism every Thankfully, there does exist a rational, mixing together elements of freedom and moral defense of capitalism in the works government control.) human being is left free of Ayn Rand. In her books and essays, Capitalism, in other words, is the particularly in Capitalism: The Unknown system where interacting voluntarily with to pursue and enjoy Ideal, you can find a detailed explanation your neighbors is the law. The use or threat of what capitalism is, the morality it is of force is legally forbidden. In any role— whatever type of life based upon, and which facts support doctor or patient, banker or customer, and validate that morality. And you can teacher or student, CEO or cashier—every he can achieve to the judge Rand’s case for claiming, in her individual enters relationships with others words, that “no politico-economic system by choice, not by threatening them with extent of his ability and in history has ever proved its value so his fists or his Senator’s power to pass eloquently or benefited mankind so greatly restrictive laws. determination. as capitalism”. Let us return then to the question of those “left behind” under capitalism. Noah Stahl, a recent graduate of Iowa Doesn’t everyone deserve an education, State University, works as software health care, and a basic income? Isn’t it forced to do so. engineer in St. Petersburg, Florida. unjust that some people get wealthy while If you don’t have children or wish to others have little? Shouldn’t we aim for a send yours to private school, opponents system that empowers the government to of capitalism say too bad—you must remedy such disparities? sacrifice your earnings to pay for the public Capitalism answers: no. There is only education of others. If you’d like to save one alternative to the capitalist model for your own retirement according to your of voluntary interaction—force. Every own judgment, too bad—you must sacrifice government policy that grants entitlements your income to pay for the retirement to some citizens does so, and must do so, income of others. If you’d prefer to spend by violating the freedom of others. To $40 a month on a gym membership rather entitle citizens to things like education, than pay taxes to Medicaid, too bad—you healthcare, or public transportation must sacrifice that “selfish” pleasure so necessarily requires forcing someone that others may have medical care. In to teach or treat or drive, or forcing these and a multitude of other cases, non- someone else (the taxpayers) to pay. In capitalist governments force you to submit other words, to establish the “right” to to the sacrificial code of altruism, whether education or healthcare is to establish the you agree and consent or not. “right” to the time, energy, and wealth Capitalism is the only social system of those who must supply such benefits. that abolishes forced sacrifice. It is based, When America’s Founding Fathers spoke not on the ethics of altruism, but on a of the right to the pursuit of happiness, morality of , which holds rather than the right to happiness itself, that it is not only permissible, but morally 3 Freedom of Speech: An Interview With Dr. Onkar Ghate

lectures, speeches, classes, etc.) or in writing be produced by the barrel of a gun. (in books, magazine stories, newspaper A government can suppress an idea, but articles, web postings, etc.). Freedom of that does not convince anyone that the idea is thought is the spiritual aspect of the right to false. A government can threaten an individual liberty, freedom of speech the material aspect; with fines, imprisonment, even death unless The Dean of the Objectivist Academic Center discusses one represents the mind, the other the body. he professes some other idea, but that does the nature, importance, and philosophic validation of free speech. The right to free speech, however, is not convert the idea into a truth in his mind. not a right to the material means by which Imagine, for a moment, that I was made to express one’s ideas. These means must be President of the United States and then tried With a little over a year having passed earned. It is not censorship, for example, if a to spread Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason since the Danish cartoon controversy, book publisher refuses to publish my book. by physical force (a contradictory pursuit, if free speech remains a central issue on The owner of a publishing house has the right ever there was one). Imagine that I threatened college and university campuses. University to decide which views his property will be citizens with imprisonment unless they administrations seem increasingly unable used to express. If the government were to professed that rational selfishness is a . to respond to the popular slogan that “hate force him to publish my book (because I have Even though I regard this idea as true, my speech is not free speech.” failed to find another publisher or create my attempt to spread its truth is worse than futile. own publishing company), the government My threats would create no thought process What does the term “hate speech” mean? would be violating the publisher’s freedom in the mind of an individual citizen. Indeed, I How does it relate to free speech? Is it even of speech. The publisher would be forced to would paralyze his rational faculty: he would a valid idea? In order to judge, we need to express not his own ideas or ideas he thinks be afraid to think openly about or voice ideas examine the deeper philosophical roots of should gain a hearing, but ideas with which he in ethics and would simply parrot slogans the right to intellectual freedom. What is disagrees. he does not understand or accept. This is the the nature, source, and justification of free Similarly, the right to free speech is not nightmare of totalitarian dictatorships, where speech? a guarantee of an audience. This too must be the minds of millions of starving individuals earned. Just as I have the right to speak and are destroyed as they are forced to chant, say, This is not an esoteric matter, nor is it a matter write what I choose, so other individuals have that Kim Jong Il is great and communism is only for philosophers to ponder. It is a central the right not to listen to or read my views the salvation of the masses. issue facing college campuses today, and the if they so decide. A reader of this paper, for Knowledge—rational understanding— decision will help determine the future course instance, is free to stop reading anytime he requires a free mind. Such, in essence, is the of the world in which we all live. There are few chooses. foundation of an individual’s right to freedom things more urgently needed in a university In essence, freedom of speech is the right of thought and speech. setting than a discussion and proper defense to use, without governmental interference, Now notice an important implication of the principle of free speech. one’s own body and property to express ideas of the freedoms of thought and speech. to anyone who chooses to listen. They necessarily protect a mind that reaches To this end, The Undercurrent has conducted Obviously, an important function of falsehoods, even evil, irrational falsehoods. an interview with Dr. Onkar Ghate, Dean at this right is to protect dissenting individuals. The right to exercise one’s mind necessarily the . He has studied Ayn Even if everyone else in society regards an includes the right to choose not to exercise Rand’s epistemology in detail, and is an individual’s ideas as wrong, obnoxious or it. Thus in a free society, Nazis, communists expert on her conception of the right to free evil, the government cannot silence him. He and racists, for instance, would have the speech. remains free to hold and express his views. right to express their vicious irrationalities. If the government were to use the coercive TU: Why is the right to freedom of speech machinery of the state to stop them from TU: Hello Dr. Ghate, and thank you for your such a crucial value? voicing their views, the government would time. become the legislator of “truth.” Anyone OG: The right to freedom of speech is a crucial familiar with the history of the Dark or Middle OG: My pleasure. I’m always eager to discuss value because knowledge is a crucial value. Ages in Europe or with Galileo’s persecution free speech. Knowledge is power: it gives one the ability by the Church knows where that leads: to the to achieve the goals which further one’s life. cessation of thought. TU: What is the principle of freedom of Think of any profession, from auto mechanic Notice too that an individual uttering speech? to computer programmer to heart surgeon. the most vicious falsehoods does not infringe What enables members of these professions on anyone’s rights. If someone declared that OG: Freedom of speech is an individual’s right to rebuild defective engines, to write software Asians are morally corrupt (I’m half Indian), to express his ideas without governmental to help manage a company’s inventory, and he neither “picks my pocket nor breaks my interference, that is, without governmental to perform open heart surgery? The root of leg,” in Thomas Jefferson’s memorable words. suppression or censorship. any individual’s productive actions is the Such an individual does not interfere with my Freedom of speech is an aspect of the knowledge he has acquired. But knowledge liberty: I remain free to think, to express my right to liberty. Just as an individual has a requires a free mind. A mind can attain thoughts in material form, and to ignore his right to think for himself and use his mind as knowledge only if it is free to ask questions, free falsehoods or oppose them with better ideas he chooses, so he has a right to express the to follow the evidence wherever it leads, free if I so choose. thoughts he has reached in material form, to weigh logically the facts it has discovered. Any actual champion of free speech must whether orally (in conversation, discussions, A mind cannot be forced. Knowledge cannot (Continued on Page 4) 4 candidate for censorship. Or: to claim that the way to combat irrational ideas is to advocate Interview with life-giving ideas of the Enlightenment are being rational ones—not to reach for the gun of the subverted and destroyed by many of today’s government. Dr. Onkar Ghate leading intellectuals in the humanities— “Hate speech” laws, however, are not as I do—may “offend” some university the creation of the public but of academics continued from Page 3 professor or may lead some people to hate and intellectuals. The reason such laws are these academics. So this idea is a candidate becoming more and more widespread is that therefore possess Voltaire’s famous attitude: “I for censorship. Or: the latest breakthrough Western culture is losing its knowledge of disapprove of what you say, but I will defend of a research scientist in genetic engineering why free speech is a value. As I’ve indicated, to the death your right to say it.” may offend an environmentalist or may lead free speech rests on the idea that knowledge some people to hate those environmentalists is a value and that to be reached, it requires TU: During the Mohammad cartoon who blow up university research laboratories. a sovereign, independent mind choosing to controversy, many people argued that So the scientist’s new idea is a candidate for exercise its powers of reason. The value of banning the cartoons was not a violation of censorship. Or: an atheist who argues that we free speech, in other words, rests on a specific free speech because the cartoons represented should discard belief in God may “offend” a view of the human mind. hate speech. What is hate speech? Is it an religionist or may cause some people to hate The dominant voices in the humanities exception to freedom of speech? fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. So the today uphold an opposing view. The human atheist’s views are candidates for censorship. mind, on the modern, anti-Enlightenment OG: Freedom of speech is a rational principle. The entire sphere of thought, in other approach, is impotent to reach truth; objective Like any rational principle, it is an absolute; words, becomes politicized. What governs human knowledge is a contradiction in terms. which means: within its context it admits of now is not the principle of individual liberty On this view, an individual happens to embrace no exceptions. but the arbitrary whims of any collective. certain ideas because he happens to belong to Apparent exceptions like a man yelling Under the principle enacted by “hate speech” the white, the black or the Indian race or to the “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater represent laws, the individual is no longer free to think tribe of males, of females, of those born in the a misunderstanding of the principle. As I’ve and express his thoughts. Instead, he must seek West or of those born in the East. Every idea said, the principle of freedom of speech every collective’s permission before speaking, is a prejudice; all that is possible to a human states that you can use your own property to mind is collective subjectivism. The power of express whatever ideas you choose—not that reason, on this approach, is a myth. you can use someone else’s property. When The end result, logically enough, is to on another’s property, you must abide by the The rights to life, liberty, property abandon the principle of individual rights. The conditions he sets. When you pay to enter a rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit movie theater, for instance, there is an implicit and the pursuit of happiness of happiness protect the rational mind. They agreement to respect the theater owner’s terms protect the individual’s freedom to pursue of use, which include that you cannot disturb protect the rational mind. truth and then to use his newfound knowledge the other customers enjoying the movie by, say, to create the material values that his life and talking on your cell phone during the movie. happiness require. But why protect the rational And you certainly cannot act to recklessly mind, if it cannot reach truth? Throw out endanger the lives of other customers by, making sure that no one is offended by his reason, in other words, and individual rights say, pretending there is a fire and creating a ideas and that no one takes his ideas as reason lose their meaning. riot. An owner of a movie theater could, of to hate anyone or anything. If reason is discarded, what is left to guide course, announce in advance that he allows his man? His feelings. And so the world becomes customers to say anything they like during the TU: Why do you think that many people a clash of (irreconcilable) prejudices—and screening of a movie, but likely he wouldn’t believe that there is some legitimacy to hate every issue is politicized. Why? Because the retain many patrons. speech laws? Are there deeper philosophical basic issue in human life now becomes whose Because freedom of speech is a principle, errors that explain the increasing existence whims rule. No dispute has a right and wrong any “exception” to it actually means its and application of such laws? answer. Every dispute is simply a contest to destruction—which brings us to laws against see which group can impose its prejudices by “hate speech.” OG: One reason is that whenever an the power of (governmental) force. One group, Such laws seek to ban speech that individual right begins to be undermined, the for instance, wants to express its ideas about “offends” or “incites hatred” toward members attack usually starts with the least attractive and religion, another group feels that of a group (the group is usually defined exercisers of the right. In the case of the attack those ideas are “offensive” and “hateful” and by physiological characteristics like race on free speech, and especially in the West, should be banned. On the modern approach, or gender). Since any idea may “offend” among the first victims are individuals who there is no objective principle of freedom or someone or may lead someone to feel hatred express loathsome ideas, such as support for individual rights to settle the matter. On the toward third parties, what does this amount to and denial of the Holocaust. Many modern approach, the question is simply: in practice? It means that whenever a member people uncritically think: Would we not be whose “feelings” get to rule? And the answer of some group finds an idea “offensive” or better off without such individuals expressing is: the feelings of the collective that is able to feels that it will produce hatred against his their evil views? Since, at least sometimes, seize control of the coercive power of the state. collective, the government has the power to the immediate result of “hate speech” laws is In the present day, this means multiculturalist, ban the idea. to ban the views of such individuals, people feminist, religious and other leaders, who are This is the death of free speech. By the support the laws without really considering beginning to succeed in seizing the power non-objective standard of “hate speech,” any the fundamental principle involved. If they of the state, passing “hate speech” laws, and idea can be banned. For instance, to call for recognized that the cost of silencing such becoming the new thought police. the end of the welfare state—as I do—may individuals is the destruction of the right to So I think at a fundamental level, the “offend” a “poverty activist” or may lead free speech—and that the Government might growing rejection of free speech is caused by people to hate the parasites who choose to next censor their ideas—they would think the growing rejection of reason. Where there live off of productive citizens. So this idea is a twice. What people must grasp is that the only (Continued on Page 5) 5 open to an individual’s choice. It is appropriate study her works.) Interview with to feel hatred toward Osama Bin Laden for the Equipped with the knowledge that Ayn murderous actions he chose to perform. It is Rand uniquely provides, students would be Dr. Onkar Ghate inappropriate to feel hatred toward a black for able to argue effectively for free speech and the color of his skin or a male for the gender against the imposition of public university continued from Page 4 of his body. It can be appropriate to feel speech codes, the banning of speakers from hatred toward a group of individuals, but only campuses, “hate speech” laws, etc. Faced with when membership in the group is a product a principled opposition—one able to articulate is respect for the power of the individual’s of choice. It is appropriate to feel hatred the connection between reason and freedom of rational mind, there is respect for the freedoms toward the Nazi leadership taken as a whole, speech—university administrations, and more of thought and speech; where there is contempt because the various individuals chose to join widely, the culture, may reconsider the issue. for the power of the individual’s rational mind, the party and give their support to Hitler. It is (Remember, however, that a private university there is contempt for the freedoms of thought inappropriate to feel hatred towards blacks or has the right to impose speech codes and ban and speech. males as a group. speakers, no matter how irrational its grounds So one judges an emotion by the for doing so.) The battle for liberty is an TU: What is hate? Is it ever proper to feel rationality or irrationality of the ideas which intellectual battle. It can be won only with the hate towards another individual or group? If generate it. This is why one judges the emotions proper intellectual ammunition. so, on what grounds? of hatred of a racist as morally monstrous. To believe that the content of a person’s mind OG: Hatred is an emotion. Broadly speaking, and character is determined by his unchosen one experiences hatred when one judges that “membership” in a physiological group— something embodies the antithesis of one’s as racists do believe—is irrational. But to University Mission values. Hatred is the opposite of love. As Ayn legally punish a racist for feeling hatred is Rand observed, love is a response to values. precisely to punish him for the ideas he holds. Statements One experiences the emotion of love when one To do so is to violate his freedom of thought. judges that something embodies one’s values. (It is of course a radically different issue if a continued from Page 1 For instance, one feels love for one’s husband racist takes physical action to violate another or wife, for one’s child, for one’s friends, for individual’s rights; but even here, the racist discriminatory or otherwise disrespectful the successful small business one has worked should be punished for his action, not for his remarks that could—in their vague language— to build up from a fledgling enterprise, and for hatred.) potentially impair the “well-being” of other one’s favorite novels and cherished pieces of students. Student handbooks usually contain music which refuel one’s spirit. By contrast, TU: What, if anything, can students do to sections specifically devoted to listing one feels hatred for the killer who threatens promote freedom of speech on university policies that define the expected standards of the life of one’s child, for the employee who campuses? What role does Ayn Rand’s conduct for students. Princeton University’s steals money from one’s company, and for the philosophy of Objectivism play in the struggle Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities handbook creators of modern “symphonies” of noise, to maintain free speech in America? demands that students “respect the rights, who help destroy the art of music. (Since privileges, and sensibilities of each other.” hatred, like love or any other emotion, is OG: To promote freedom of speech, students Verbal behavior “which demeans, intimidates, caused by an individual’s ideas and judgment, must understand its nature. In my estimation, threatens, or injures another…is subject to the attempt to ban “hatred” is obviously an this requires studying the works of Ayn Rand. University disciplinary sanctions.” attempt to ban ideas.) She is the most penetrating and principled These codes seem reasonable if they are Morally, it certainly is appropriate to defender of individual rights. meant to restrict harassment of individual experience both love and hatred. If one feels Observe that mysticism and blind faith students, but aggressive student activists often love for the good, one will feel hatred for lead, politically, to authoritarianism—as the appeal to the vague language of these codes to the evil. If one feels love for man’s life and West witnessed for centuries after the fall of target controversial ideas. It is in such cases, the things which further it, one will feel Rome. In that kind of culture, liberty is non- more than ever, that universities must have hatred toward that which undermines them. existent. Observe also that skepticism and the courage to confront and discipline those I experience love or hatred toward many the rule of whim lead, politically, to gang who keep others from expressing their views. things—and regard both of these emotions as warfare—as the West is now witnessing as They must defend, not oppose, those who appropriate. Just as I love creators like Thomas group after group seeks the political power to communicate ideas that are allegedly insulting Edison, so I hate destroyers like Hitler. Just ban that which it considers “offensive.” In this or offensive to others. as I love freedom-fighters like Thomas kind of culture too, liberty disappears. Only a Last fall, the Columbia administration Jefferson, so I hate the religionists who flew defense of reason can provide the foundation confronted an incident that tested their planes into the World Trade Center. Just as I for a defense of the rights to freedom of commitment to the university’s mission. The love Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, thought and speech. Columbia College Republicans invited Mr. Jim so I hate the ideologies of communism and And this makes Ayn Rand’s philosophy Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, . I regard these experiences of hatred indispensable in the battle for free speech. an organized vigilance group that reports as appropriate because the emotions flow from Taking a historical perspective, Ayn Rand’s illegal immigrants to legal authorities. Mr. what I think are correct ideas and evaluations: accomplishment in my view is that she Gilchrist accepted the invitation and flew to the things I hate are, in one form or another, completed the defense of reason that Aristotle Columbia with the purpose of communicating inimical to man’s life. (Though evil must be began. Aristotle defended the power of the his anti-immigration arguments to an audience opposed and combated, it and the emotions rational mind against both the mysticism of willing to listen. it engenders should never be granted the Plato and the skepticism of the Sophists. Ayn Unfortunately, Mr. Gilchrist was met importance one grants to the good. One should Rand’s philosophic achievement is to defend with fierce disruption from pro-immigration never become consumed by hatred.) the power of the rational mind against today’s activists, who regarded the lecture as an Of course in a moral context hatred is hordes of Kantian-inspired mystics and offensive “verbal attack” on their deepest appropriate only in regard to that which is skeptics. (For the details, one must of course (Continued on Page 6) 6 This resulted in further “investigations” that eyes. History provides ample examples of this University Mission lead the university to suspend the event on a common clash between truth and majority technicality. approval. Prior to the civil war, for instance, Statements Fortunately, student protesters did not most people in the south justified and promoted have the last say in these two stories. Due to slavery and segregation. Prior to Copernicus, continued from Page 5 the unyielding persistence of club leaders and most accepted the model from ancient times to support from outside sources, both clubs that the planets and the stars revolved around sensibilities. What began as a peaceful event found ways to re-schedule their events for the earth. Heretics were persecuted and killed on an October day quickly turned into a violent later in the semester. for challenging once widespread religious demonstration as student protesters stormed Despite their claims to the contrary, doctrine. the stage to chant their view that “no one is these incidents show that some protesters act The purpose of free speech is to permit the ever illegal.” Mr. Gilchrist, forced to leave the to silence and suppress the free exchange of expression of ideas, but more specifically, those building, was unable to complete his lecture. ideas between students. Their fundamental ideas which are not popularly embraced or that Immediately after the incident, President goal is not to persuade other students that might be offensive to a group of people. It is Bollinger issued a public announcement that their views are correct, but to impose their only the offensive, controversial, unpopular “the University [was] thoroughly investigating ideas through intimidation and aggression. kind of speech that actually requires protection. the incident.” He also deplored student activists As a consistent and neutral guardian of free Speech that vilifies and denounces capitalism or for “[using] the cover of protest to silence speech, the UCLA administration, instead of promotes a “green” America needs no protection speakers,” thereby threatening the very principle building insurmountable barriers at the first because such views are met with very little, if Columbia is “institutionally dedicated” to sign of social upheaval, should have supported any, opposition. What really requires defense protecting—namely the right to free speech. L.O.G.I.C. with adequate security during is unpopular speech—namely, speech that After a somewhat long investigative and challenges environmentalist policies, denies bureaucratic process, the university punished the alleged rights to welfare and healthcare, or some of protesters for their reprehensible advocates full-blown military action against conduct. The purpose of free speech is terrorism-supporting nations even at the The Columbia administration deserves to expense of civilian casualties. These examples be acknowledged for recognizing, to a certain to permit the expression of point to highly unpopular positions—positions degree, the need to defend the very principle which activists will attempt to silence, no that, in Bollinger’s own words, stimulates ideas, but more specifically, matter how civil the actions of the speakers “intellectual inquiry and vigorous debate.” But may be. universities, if they are fully committed to free those ideas which are not University administrators, as one can speech, need to do much more than merely see, are often inconsistent in their defense of discipline students after the fact. Given the popularly embraced or that free expression outside the classroom. It is regularity of such disruptions across college crucial that they implement their campuses, administrations should take more might be offensive to a group consistently in order to fulfill their mission— pro-active measures to prevent dissenters from namely, to educate and train the minds of our interrupting club-sponsored events. of people. future generation. In contrast to the episode at Columbia It is the nature of the very object of University, administrators at UCLA actually education—i.e. the student’s mind—that took evasive measures to prevent L.O.G.I.C., necessitates a proper defense of freedom of the campus Objectivist Club, from holding the event. Their hesitancy and cowardice speech. The mind requires freedom: the freedom their scheduled debate on immigration. only shows their willingness to undercut the to ask questions, to seek knowledge, and to The leaders had organized a debate principle of free expression in order to not evaluate observations in order to reach logical between Mr. Carl Braun, director of the offend certain student groups. This can only conclusions. This freedom to think does imply Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, and Dr. Yaron further encourage and embolden belligerent that some students will reach false conclusions Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand student activists. and hold irrational beliefs, but it is this very Institute. But a few days before, the university With this in mind, universities must provide implication that makes the free exchange of administration cancelled the event in response a safe haven for speech that is controversial, ideas even more necessary. An honest student to a leftist student group’s threats that it would unpopular, and perhaps insulting to students who holds false beliefs will have a hard time launch a Columbia-style protest. With slogans with opposing viewpoints. Universities must, being persuaded of his errors if those who may like “Say No to Hate!” the group intended to as a matter of principle, react immediately to hold true beliefs are prevented from expressing show their opposition toward the Minutemen threats from student activists—by punishing theirs. and their “racist agenda.” those who disturb student-sponsored events A university must serve as the impartial Ironically, both L.O.G.I.C. and the Ayn and by taking the necessary steps to ensure guardian, the warden that protects both Rand Institute advocate views contrary to that adequate security is available. But perhaps right and wrong ideas, independent of their those of Mr. Braun and his anti-immigration more importantly, administrators should popularity. It is only in this kind of learning supporters. But Dr. Brook’s arguments in publicly condemn the actions of protesters environment—one that fosters civilized and favor of open immigration were not heard in as nonacademic and uncivilized while lively debate—that the best ideas and the best February because the university succumbed to encouraging dissenters to respond by means minds can flourish and prevail. intimidation. of arguments, not disruptions. In a similar case, the campus Objectivist This is especially necessary in cases Kelly Cadenas is a third year club at George Mason University was obliged where the ideas being advocated are undergraduate at Harvard University, where to cancel historian John Lewis’ lecture on the unpopular. Popularity is in no way the measure she currently pursues a degree in war on terrorism. Muslim student groups filed of an idea’s validity. Ideas which many once Biochemistry. complaints to the university administration, thought correct are now known to be false and which lead the department to revoke the venue immoral. Likewise, ideas once shunned as in order to avoid a potential controversy. untrue and heretical are now seen with different 7 In Defense of Income Inequality

income inequality has supposedly become egalitarian’s solution is to eliminate all such more acute—real wages for the median inequalities. worker rose 11.5%. Even workers in the Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the lowest tenth percentile had an increase of valid tenet of political equality, under which 4%. we have equal rights. That is, we have the No, the alleged problem is not that right to achieve whatever our ambition Income inequality, in a free market, represents some are becoming poor—but that others and talents allow, with no one permitted to something good; the campaign against it rests are too rich. The complaint is that while the forcibly stop us. Egalitarianism, however, is on the egalitarian view that the most able should bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, a denial of the individual’s right to be left the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The free. It is an abhorrent demand that some complaint is that over the past 25 years, the people be punished for achieving what by share of income of the top fifth of households others haven’t. It is a brazen declaration that climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the an equality of condition must be attained. The issue of income inequality reveals one bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%. And how is it to be attained? By—as of the ugliest aspects of today’s culture. The But this development represents an the Australians aptly phrase it—cutting ugliness stems not from the existence of injustice only if we use a perverse standard down the tall poppies. No one is to be income inequality—but from the motives of of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure allowed to surpass his fellow-citizen. No those who denounce it. someone’s economic status not by what he one is to be allowed to rise. Which means Income inequality used to be a rabble- has, but by what others have—i.e., only if that the most able must be brought down rousing issue of the left. Now it is being he benefits not by making more money, but to the level of the least able. The equal raised by mainstream figures, from the by making his neighbor have less. spread of misery and privation is the only head of the Federal Reserve to President This is the standard of egalitarianism— “equality” that egalitarians ultimately seek. Bush, who are apologetically trying to offer the standard that demands a uniformity of This is why they extol socialist societies, solutions. But what is the actual problem income, regardless of anyone’s ability or where all suffer equal destitution, while they wish to solve? Certainly, it is not a effort. It is the standard of envy, whereby vilifying capitalist societies, where all are growth in poverty. To the contrary, between a problem exists whenever some have free to advance according to their abilities 1979 and 2006—the period during which more, of anything, than others. And the (Continued on Page 8) 8 and where the poorest enjoy greater luxuries of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing including a widening inequality—in than any citizen in a “worker’s paradise.” glob of income that somehow oozes incomes? And, instead of apologizing for Making others fall does not make you disproportionately into the pockets of the this phenomenon, why aren’t our leaders rise. While prohibiting a Thomas Edison rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the denouncing the egalitarian enviers who or a Bill Gates from becoming fabulously population have ten times more income than want to level us all? wealthy does indeed reduce income the bottom fifth because they haveproduced inequality, it does not make the poor richer. ten times more. Peter Schwartz is a Distinguished Fellow at the Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire. In a statist system, people advance Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, They are motivated by what Ayn Rand through government favors and at the California. The Institute promotes Objectivism, called “hatred of the good”: if they lack expense of the genuinely deserving. But in the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas something of value, they want to make sure a free, capitalist system, income inequality Shrugged and The Fountainhead. nobody else has it either. represents something good. It means that Income inequality is an effect. The exceptional individuals are free to do their print and web design cause is the difference in people’s economic productive best, and to reap their rewards. production. Criticizing income inequality is Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his like complaining that a computer carries a fortune, the income disparity between higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects top and bottom increases—but so does red queen DESIGN STUDIO an object’s market value—and the money everyone’s standard of living. If so, why someone earns reflects the market value shouldn’t we welcome an inequality— www.redqueenstudio.com

SpRegular Objectivistea Club kUniversitye of California,rs , SanEv Fransisco Statee nMetrots Detroit, MOne-Timeeeti Events: Principle”n bygs Dr. Meetings: Berkeley University The Objectivist Group (Berkeley, CA) (San Fransisco, CA) What: Monthly Costa Mesa, CA “The DIM Hypothesis” by New York University Objectivist Club of SFSU Students of meetings ARI Public Lecture“The Dr. Leonard Peikoff (New York, NY) Berkeley Objectivism When: Third Wednesday Rise and Fall of Property of each month “9/11—One Year Later” by NYU Objectivist Club What: Weekly meetings What: Weekly meetings Rights in America by Dr. Contact: Katie Where: Cesar Chavez Contact: Adam Mosoff Dr. What: Regular meetings Togplsgruchala@ Contact: Kara Brakora—kbrakora@ Student Center Where: Hilton Costa berkeley.edu Contact:aynrand@sfsu. comcast.net Mesa “Free Speech and the Zavarella—nyuoc_ Danish Cartoons” with Dr. [email protected] edu When: Wed., May 16 at San Francisco, CA 7:30 pm Yaron Brook and Dr. Daniel University of California, Pipes Harvard University Irvine University of Florida Golden Gate Objectivists Contact: mail@aynrand. org (Cambridge, MA) (Irvine, CA) (Gainesville, FL) Contact: “Passing Judgment: Ayn www. www.aynrand.org Rand’s View of Justice” by Harvard Objectivist Club Objectivist Club at UCI Ayn Rand Club goldengateobjectivists. Contact: Dr. Contact: www.hcs. What: Weekly meetings aynrandclub@ com gmail.com harvard.edu/~hoc Where: HH 143 goldengateobjectivists@ GENERAL “Democracy vs. Victory” by [email protected] When: Thursdays at yahoo.com ANNOUNCEMENTS: Dr. Yaron Brook 6:30 pm University of Maryland University of California, Contact: ebrunner@ (College Park, MD) Washington, DC The Lucidicus Project “Religion and Morality” by Los Angeles uci.edu Dr. Onkar Ghate Terrapin Objectivists DC Objectivist Salon Free books to medical (Los Angeles, CA) What: Weekly meetings University of California, (DCOS) students interested in “Atlas Shrugged— Contact:terrapin- L.O.G.I.C. San Diego What: Monthly study/ learning about the moral America’s Second What: Weekly meetings objectivists@ discussion group and economic case for Declaration of on UCLA campus (La Jolla, CA) googlegroups.com Contact: www. capitalism. Independence” by Dr. Onkar Where: Kerckhoff 133 UCSD Objectivist Club dcobjectivistsalon.org/ Contact: Jared Ghate When: Wednesdays at What: Weekly meetings Georgia Tech Rhoads—jared.rhoads@ 7:00 pm Where: Sequoia Room (Atlanta, GA) Toronto, Ontario lucidicus.org “The Separation of Church Contact: of Sierra Summit and State” by Dr. C. Bradley What: Weekly meetings OPAR Study Group Thomas www.ClubLogic.org When: Mondays at 7:00 Contact: Dalia Tubis— The Ayn Rand Institute pm Contact: cyberbuzz. [email protected] daliatubis@yahoo. Free video and audio Contact: objectivist. gatech.edu/aynrand “Totalitarian ’s Threat com & Guy Barnett— selections online: [email protected] to the West” with Dr. Yaron [email protected] www.aynrand.org Brook, Dr. Daniel Pipes, and Dr. Wafa Sultan “Why Should One Act on The Undercurrent is a student publication, produced and distributed by college Disclaimer. The Undercurrent is an independent student publication and does not students at campuses across North America. necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the views of the Estate of Ayn Rand, or the All inquiries regarding contributing, distributing, and advertising should Ayn Rand Institute. The views expressed and facts contained in each article are the be directed to [email protected]. For more information on The responsibility of the author. Undercurrent, back issues, additional resources, and further commentary, visit our website at the-undercurrent.com. MAY CONTRIBUTORS Benefactors: Peter LePort, MD: General and Weight Loss Surgery Managing editor ...... Ray Girn Editors ...... Stephen Donovan, Dan Norton Guy Burnett Staff writers ...... Kelly Cadenas, Noah Stahl Sponsors: Allen Gotthelf, Sandra Shaw, Lindsay Journo, Tom Dungey, Zev Advisory editors ...... Quinn Wyndham-Price, Barnett, Rob Tarr, Mark Moses, Mark Hilse Ned Chalmers Project manager ...... Rebecca Knapp Copyrights. Copyright © 2007 The Undercurrent. Each article is the property of Financial ...... Felipe Sediles its author; all other content is the property of The Undercurrent. No portion may Layout & design ...... Tori Press be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent of The Webmaster ...... Jared Seehafer Undercurrent. “In Defense of Income Inequality” is reprinted with permission from Distribution officer ...... Eric Brunner the Ayn Rand Institute. © 1995-2007 Ayn Rand ® Institute (ARI).