These are Dr. Shane Courtland's PowerPoint slides for his "Last Lecture," delivered at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF
TOLERATING OFFENSE
SHANE D. COURTLAND
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PHILOSOPHY
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY

2. ON LIBERTY
 JOHN STUART MILL – (1806-1879)
 Publishes On Liberty in 1860
 “That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted,
individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of
any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His
own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (13)

3. FREE DISCUSSION
 “[T]here ought to exist the fullest liberty of
professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical
conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may
be considered.” (n19)
 “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and
only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing
that one person, than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing mankind.” (20)

4. FREE DISCUSSION
 Reasons:
 “If the opinion is right, they are
deprived of the opportunity of
exchanging error for truth” (20)
 “if wrong, they lose, what is almost as
great a benefit, the clearer perception
and livelier impression of truth,
produced by its collision with error.”
(20)

5. ASSUMPTION OF INFALLIBILITY
 “First the opinion which it is attempted to suppress
by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire
to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are
not infallible. They have no authority to decide the
question for all mankind, and exclude every other
person from the means of judging. To refuse a
hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it
is false, is to assume that their certainty is the
same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of
discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (20-1)

6. HOW TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE
The Pepsi Challenge

7. DEAD DOGMA VS. LIVING TRUTH
 “Waiving, however, this possibility — assuming that
the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a
prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against,
argument — this is not the way in which truth ought
to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the
truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the
more, accidentally clinging to the words which
enunciate a truth.” (37)

8. THE
 “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the
arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed
to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for
an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that
they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility
when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on
all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some
particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be
questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are
certain that it is certain.” (24-5)

9. SO WHAT?
 Obviously, at a university, we
are against censorship!
 Not so fast, it has become
acceptable to silence other
people/views that are deemed
as offensive

10. WHERE CENSORSHIP COMES FROM
 There is a common presumption that censorship comes from civil and/or
ecclesiastical authority (state or church)
 But –ignored is that such censorship is usually backed large mobs of people
 “But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society
collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of
tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its
political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it
issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which
it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than
many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such
extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more
deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.…[T]here needs
protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against
the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own
ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter
the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality
not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves
upon the model of its own.” (8)

11. FAHRENHEIT 451
 “It didn’t come from the government down. There was no
dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!” (58)
 “You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we
can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What
do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy,
isn’t that right?…Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo.
Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the
lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book.
Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better
yet, to the incinerator.” (59)
 50th anniversary edition, Bradbury writes: “There is more than
one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running
around with lit matches.” (176-7)

12. CENSORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
 Under the pretense of “being offended”
students (and some faculty):
 Sought to get people fired
 Disinvited speakers
(https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-
disinvitations-2000-2014/)
 Shouted down speakers
 Tried to change rules/regulations to
silence others

13. CENSORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

14. WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
 The Millian reasons we just discussed
 Presupposes the infallibility that Mill warns us about:
“[J]ust who is supposed to decide what speech is ‘bigoted’ and what speech
is merely ‘critical.’ Why is that a ‘bigoted suggestion rather than an
unpopular opinion? What’s the difference? And who is to say? The anti-
bigotry people never approach the question directly, because doing so
would show them up. The answer is : we, the right thinking, are the one’s
who will say who is and isn’t bigoted. Whenever anyone says that bigoted
or offensive or victimizing or oppressing or vicious opinions should be
suppressed, all he is really saying is, ‘Opinions which I hate should be
suppressed.’” (Rauch 134-5) (emphasis added)

15. ADDITIONAL REASONS TO TOLERATE OFFENSE
 Epictetus – “Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must
believe that you are being harmed. If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that
your mind is complicit in the provocation. Which is why it is essential that we not respond
impulsively to impressions; take a moment before reacting, and you will find it is easier to
maintain control.” (Enchiridion)
 Marcus Aurelius -- “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal
with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are
like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the
ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own -
not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.
And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel
angry at my relative, or hate him.” (Meditations)

16. ADDITIONAL REASONS TO TOLERATE OFFENSE
By focusing on how offended you are, you
may miss valuable lessons

17. WHAT CAN WE DO
Encourage intellectual
diversity
 Diversity in sexual orientation, gender, race,
and the like, are important … but it is not
necessarily what gets us the Millian
goodness.
 Imagine if we had the same doctrine taught
by an extremely diverse set (i.e., race,
gender, sexual orientation, etc.) of
individuals….

18. WHAT CAN WE DO
 In a modern university setting --
which type of student gets a
better education:
 Liberal
 Conservative

19. WHAT CAN WE DO
 We should view those that disagree with us differently…
 How we view them: “The truth is obvious – If you don’t see it, then you
must be either crazy, stupid, or acting in bad faith.”
 How we should view them: “The world is a complicated and messy place
– I should expect that intelligent individuals would come to different
conclusions.”

20. FINAL THOUGHT
 Education, when done right, is not pain free:
 “[The pursuit of knowledge] thrives on prejudice no less than on
cool detachment. It does not give a damn about your feelings
and happily tramples them in the name of finding truth. It
allows and – here we should be honest – sometimes
encourages offense. Self-esteem, sensitivity, respect for others’
beliefs, renunciation of prejudice are all good as far as they go.
But as primary social goals they are incompatible with the
peaceful and productive advancement of human knowledge. To
advance knowledge, we must all sometimes suffer. Worse than
that, we must inflict suffering on others.” (Rauch 19)