Criticism of Speech Does Not Equate to Silencing

To the editors:


Re: “The ‘Free Speech’ Agenda,” op-ed, Nov. 20.

I suppose I should be flattered that so distinguished a personage as Professor Alan M. Dershowitz devoted so much attention to me in a piece in The Crimson. According to him, I am an enemy of free speech because I criticized Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger’s remarks in introducing the president of Iran when he spoke at our University. My real agenda, according to Dershowitz, is that I am “against Israel,” by which he evidently means anyone who criticizes any Israeli policy.

I don’t know what the standards of proof among law professors are, but among historians it is customary to present facts to bolster an argument. I defy Professor Dershowitz to cite any statement of mine that is “against Israel.” My criticism of President Bollinger revolved around the part of his speech that seemed to commit Columbia University to support of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, and to blame Iran for the violence there. When introducing a foreign head of state, the president of a university is not simply expressing his “personal views,” as Dershowitz claims, but speaking for the university.

Lest anyone actually believe Dershowitz’s misrepresentation, I am categorically in favor of the broadest possible freedom of speech for everyone, whether I agree with them or not. If Dershowitz had taken the time to study my writings and actions, he would have realized this. Criticizing the content of speech—as I did with President Bollinger—is not the same thing as trying to deprive him of the right to speak, a distinction a law professor ought to understand.


ERIC FONER

New York, N.Y.

November 21, 2007


The writer is DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University.