The Essentials of Opposing Ideologies
Earlier this year in Indiana, Beech Grove Mayor Dennis Buckley posted a comment on the police department’s Facebook page after a department arrest. Mayor Buckley observed, “Another job well done by BGPD. Just received the August report, crime reporting down 9.6% from August 2014.”[1] In response, Beech Grove resident, Kymberly Quick, posted a number of statistics relating to violent crimes in Beech Grove and proceeded to question whether crime was indeed down in the community:
Mayor Buckley, wonderful to see you on Facebook. I have a few questions. I am looking over the Aug 2015 Police Department numbers for our next Beech Grove Crime Watch Meeting. Part I Crime in regards to violent cases up by 29.4% (this includes assaults, homicides, rape, & robbery)…Is it just that citizens are refusing to file reports, is it police not filing reports because of a criteria not being met, or what? And what exactly does the category “drug case” under this category Part II Crimes signify…what does this mean and include? I know from listening to others that drugs and vandalism have been quite rampant in our City. Please provide some insight into this…I look forward to your responses in regards to my questions.[2]
According to a federal lawsuit filed later by Ms. Quick, the city responded with an Orwellian swiftness by deleting the comment.[3] Ms. Quick argued that the City of Beech Grove opened its Facebook pages for viewership and commentary to anyone with a Facebook account—arguably a public forum. Eventually, the parties entered a consent injunction agreeing that the city would no longer remove citizens’ comments for their viewpoints.[4]
This scenario is interesting on multiple levels. First, it is interesting to observe how organizations respond to criticism, particularly when the organization is a government entity. My job with the Kansas Association of Counties provides a number of opportunities to study how local governments function, and we regularly receive calls from local officials regarding issues that touch on both legal and political matters. The solutions are seldom easy, but the deliberations are always worthwhile.
While I remain personally and professionally curious about government conduct in the technological version of public space and speech, there seems to be a deeper issue that warrants consideration. It is even more interesting reflecting on the way we collectively digest and respond to information—particularly information we dispute.
As I read about how the City of Beech Grove allegedly responded to the critiques of its citizens, I revisited a Dwight Eisenhower biography I read over the summer. Jean Edward Smith’s 2012 biography, Eisenhower in War and Peace, explored Eisenhower’s roots, his service in the military, and his presidency.[5] But the period I knew least about was his tenure as president of Columbia University.
The anecdote that stuck with me took place in 1947. Columbia had a Marxist study group, and they invited Arnold Johnson of the American Communist Party to speak at Pupin Hall, a National Historic Landmark and home to Columbia’s physics and astronomy departments. Columbia renamed the building after Serbian physicist, Mihajlo Pupin, who graduated from Columbia, and his daughter wrote Eisenhower after the university did not object to Johnson’s lecture. In her letter she asked whether Columbia would keep traitors out of Pupin Hall.
Eisenhower responded in full support of Columbia’s decision:
The virtues of our system will never be fully appreciated unless we also understand the essentials of opposing ideologies. I deem it not only unobjectionable but very wise to allow opposing systems to be presented by their proponents. Indeed, I believe that arbitrary refusal to allow students, especially upon their own request, to hear the apostles of these false systems would create in their minds a justified suspicion that we ourselves fear a real comparison between democracy and dictatorship.[6]
Given the atrocities of World War II, it might seem appropriate for Eisenhower to respond with an authoritarian fervor to Johnson’s lecture. But instead, he maintained the confidence of an individual who was prepared to give a defense for what he holds true.
It might be easy to dismiss Eisenhower’s stance as the convictions of a man from a simple and bygone era. But it is hard to imagine the challenges we face as anywhere near as daunting as what Eisenhower and his World War II contemporaries confronted. It is also hard to imagine Eisenhower ordering the removal of a comment instead of formulating a meaningful response.
Opposing ideologies can be frustrating, time-consuming, and even challenging to our very core. But as my 4-year old recently observed “it’s fun because it’s tricky.” Rather than shy away from conversations that may seem challenging, wrong-headed, or foolish, it is worthwhile to consider and respond with gentleness and respect. Such discussions may take place online or in person, but responding well is the best method by which we can provide solutions to the problems we may face.
Footnotes
[1] Complaint, Quick v. City of Beech Grove, No. 1:16-cv-1709-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. 2016).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Order for Permanent Injunction, Quick v. City of Beech Grove, No. 1:16-cv-1709-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. 2016)..
[5] Smith, J. E. (2012). Eisenhower: In war and peace. New York: Random House.
[6] Id.
Originally published in the January 2017 Kansas Bar Journal
