Frederick Douglass, “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” 1860
Whole speech, this 🧵
“Boston is a great city—and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom...
2/26
“...been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark & heavy. The principles of human liberty...
3/26
“..., even if correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour of trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact.
4/26
“Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble & to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.
5/26
“But here we are today contending for what we thought was gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed.
6/26
“They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.
The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: 'How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?' The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured...
7/26
“...by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion & prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum & hounded on...
8/26
“...by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose—a mere exceptional affair—it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.
9/26
“These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them & proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech & the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot...
10/26
“...while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.
The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth.
11/26
“Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless & abandoned loafers—assuming for the moment their manners & tempers—they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.
12/26
“No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege.
13/26
“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts & opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power.
14/26
“Thrones, dominions, principalities, & powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech.
15/26
“Five years of its [i.e., free speech's] exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?
16/26
“Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base & cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating & regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time.
17/26
“We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, & the parties to it unwise.
Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate & excuse a palpable & flagrant outrage on the right of speech...
18/26
“...by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those...
19/26
“...on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question...
20/26
“...and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?
It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express...
21/26
“...their opinions on all subjects—including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now.
22/26
“There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
23/26
“Equally clear is the right to hear. “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.
24/26
“I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.
25/26
“The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery.
26/26
“A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right—and there let it rest forever.”
Frederick Douglass, “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” 1860.
Whole speech in this 🧵.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
[Your proposed curriculum outline] "is the praxis of Critical Race Theory. I wholeheartedly believe that the tragedies and triumphs of differing ethnicities should be known, but I strongly oppose the ideological hijacking of Ethnic Studies and the unequal and inequitable treatment of some ethnicities as proposed by your suggested curriculum outline.
🔥🔥🔥🧵
2)
"What's being put forward is not a true celebration of heritage or shared American values. It is the quiet embedding of the praxis of Critical Theory, especially Critical Race Theory—ideas that do not unite our children, but promote some, demoralize others, and divide all. This course outline repeatedly uses the language of systems, resistance, collective identity, Marxist terms, terms drawn and defined by Critical Race Theory, and reinforces the idea that power structures frame our reality.
3)
"A course embedded with the practice of Critical Race Theory will teach students to see themselves primarily through the lens of race, oppression, and power. It replaces character with color and encourages children to view themselves either as historic and perpetual victims or oppressors based on immutable traits they cannot control.
"I have a word now...about races and race lines. I have no hesitation in telling you that I think the colored people and their friends make a great mistake in saying so much of race and color. I know no such basis for the claims of justice. I know no such a motive for efforts at self-improvement. In this race-way they put the emphasis in the wrong place. 🧵
2)
"I do now and always have attached more importance to manhood than to mere kinship or identity with any variety of the human family. Race, in the popular sense, is narrow. Humanity is broad. The one is special the other is universal; the one is transient, the other permanent.
3)
"In the essential dignity of man as man, I find all necessary incentives and aspirations to a useful and noble life. Manhood is broad enough, and high enough as a platform for you and me and all of us.
"BLM de-policing policies seem to have taken thousands of (mainly Black) lives. During the BLM era, the age-adjusted Black homicide rate has almost doubled, rising from 18.6 murders per 100K African-Americans in 2011 to 32 murders per 100K in 2021. Murders of Black males rose to an astonishing peak of 56/100K during this period (in 2021), while Black women (9.0/100K) came to 'boast' a higher homicide rate than White men (6.4) and all American men (8.2)." 🧵
2)
"Yet for all our lambasting of BLM, police unions and leaders have not covered themselves in glory, largely supporting precinct level decisions to de-police the dangerous parts ('no-go'- or 'slow-go'-zones) of major cities, and refusing to support reforms that do cut crime but discomfort cops. Astonishingly, high homicide rates have little or no impact on whether police commissioners keep their jobs, giving cops few incentives to do better rather than just well enough.
3)
"The real question for those of us who want to make police better rather than run for office or get government grants, is how we can get low-performing police departments to learn from the best, and how we can get the mayors, city councils, governors, and state legislatures overseeing police to enact the sort of civil service reforms, like higher pay coupled with abolishing civil service tenure, that are likely to succeed in getting police to make all lives matter.
Remember when the neo-segregationist left told you that white doctors were killing black babies?
Turns out they were either incapable of analyzing their own data or outright lying to you.
A new study demolishes the failings and falsehoods in that first study. We unpack it: 🧵
2)
The original study claimed black newborns had lower mortality rates when cared for by black physicians. This got a lot of attention and influenced legal discourse, despite its, ahem, limitations. Classic 2020: it was as if they wanted you to think black people and white people couldn't live together.
The study was so influential it was even cited (with clumsy inaccuracies) by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, demonstrating how far-reaching its conclusions became.
"In December of 2022, I published on our university library website a research guide consisting of a bibliography of black writers with heterodox views. By May of 2023, five months later, I had been labeled a racist, placed on administrative leave, and targeted for firing."
3)
"The bibliography was created and compiled by folks at an organization called Free Black Thought whose mission is, in their own words, to represent the rich diversity of black thought beyond the relatively narrow spectrum of views promoted by mainstream outlets. Although their website contains a variety of resources, my librarian’s eye was immediately drawn to their bibliography, which they named the Compendium of Free Black Thought (). They presented it as an open access work and encouraged folks to use it as they see fit.bit.ly/36FTtDQ
"How could it be that the university is zealous about policing pronouns but blasé about the advocacy of hateful violence?"
Roland Fryer's latest for the WSJ, "Anti-Israel Protests and the ‘Signaling’ Problem," reproduced here in full. 🧵
2)
"The anti-Israel protests on college campuses present a puzzle for observers of academic norms and mores. Today, even relatively minor linguistic infractions, like the failure to use someone’s preferred pronouns, are categorized as abuse at many elite institutions, some of which even define potentially offensive speech as 'violence.' One need not even speak to run afoul of campus speech codes; I recently participated in a training in which we were warned of the consequences of remaining silent if we heard someone 'misgender' someone else.
3)
"Definitions of 'harmful' speech have become so capacious that one assumes they include antisemitism. In some cases, they surely do: A university wouldn’t take a hands-off approach to a student or faculty member who expressed prejudice against Jews in the manner of Archie Bunker or the Charlottesville marchers. Yet that’s what many of them have done when faced with protesters’ speech that is offensive to Jews, even when it crosses the line into threats, intimidation and harassment.