In her column "A bold brand of peace" (Feb. 20), Emily Thomey tries to undermine two of liberal society's great pillars. She complains, "Our divisions have become more of a weakness than a strength" and "Free speech no longer leads to open communication-it lies as an obstacle in our path toward progress." Her solution is to follow a wise and all-knowing leader in the mode of Archbishop Elias Charcour. With the venerable priest otherwise occupied, she would no doubt offer to lend her own services to decide which divisions are worth having and which speech is permissible. Never mind that the rights to free assembly-that is, self-definition-and free speech are so important that they appear first in our Bill of Rights. Such outmoded documents must be sacrificed in the name of whatever Thomey's peace looks like.
Peace without free agency is not worth having. If it was, then the great American experiment is in vain, and we should have laid down in the face of authoritarianism in World War II, or Communism in the Cold War. Then we could indeed have had peace, without internal division, and without angry debate. If, as Thomey claims, "There is no alternative to peace" and "There is not another path to be considered," we need do nothing but offer up ourselves to totalitarianism on the altar of utopia.
I believe, and you may agree or disagree justifiably, that general peace is possible through individualism. But even if I'm wrong, I would rather fight to defend my rights to self-definition and unbound speech than live in a peaceful world where my identity and expression are defined by another.
Oliver Sherouse
Trinity '09
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.