Peter Singer
To the Editors:
Jenny Teichman is a respected philosopher; The New Criterion is a respected journal. How could the one come to write and the other to print her philippic “The False Philosophy of Peter Singer” (April 1993)? Teichman misunderstands Singer’s complaint. Worse, she misunderstands academic freedom and freedom of speech. Singer claims no right to be invited to speak anywhere. What he claims are the rights to be allowed to speak without disruption when invited, not to be disinvited after invitation because of threats of disruption, and the right not to fail to be invited because of the same threat. And Singer rightly claims more: that his book Practical Ethics not be withdrawn from courses and that advertised chairs not lose their funding because of threats.
Teichman’s argument rests on a monstrous premise: that people who dislike a view and who are in no position to publish rebuttals because they are not academics may, in lieu of rebuttal, physically prevent a speaker from speaking and his book from being taught. This premise is blind to academic freedom. It is also dangerous, for it is liable to turn upon those who wield it. Who does not have some view that others despise? Whose views would be safe if Teichman’s premise were accepted?
The question is not the defense of Singer’s views. He’s quite capable of defending them himself when allowed.
The question is not the defense of Singer’s views. He’s quite capable of