It was shocking to learn when doing research for this column that it was not Voltaire who said something like, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” (Bartlett be damned.) It appears the adage may have been coined by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English author, long after Voltaire’s demise. Yet, I recall being taught throughout my school years to revere that adage, and to uphold it as a fundamental tenet of democracy’s most essential guarantee: The right of free speech.

As reported in the local news media over the past several months, that precious right seems to have been trammeled by individuals who seem to have read less Voltaire (or Hall), and more Lewis Carroll: by people who seem to prefer adages such as “I have heard enough. Off with their heads,” which by the way may not have been said by the Queen of Hearts in the original version of “Alice in Wonderland,” but may be an invention of Disney.

The forgoing is my attempt to tactfully approach the question of whether we have progressed from the public shaming and pillories in village squares of Colonial times, when we continue to publicly punish individuals who stray from the orthodoxy of liberalism. I regard myself as being liberal, but is it in keeping with liberal ideals when we tolerate self-anointed “saints” who restrict the free exchange of ideas and opposing points of view, in an atmosphere of mutual respect?

While, in my opinion, there is no place in public discourse for intentional untruths, and vengeful tit-for-tatting politics, there must always be a place for members of a community to come together to discuss without rancor, or fear of retribution, their sincerely held concerns about making our communities welcoming places, in which everyone can feel safe and respected, as they seek consensus on what is good.

Among the incidents that have perplexed me, but which heretofore I was reluctant to speak about publicly are: the departure of a principal whose decision to modify an advanced placement math course met with resistance, which erupted into a student protest because in a semi-private email she referred to students as “asshats”; the near destruction of a respected educator’s career because it was unilaterally determined that “ladies” is an inappropriate salutation; the decision to not hire a well-qualified educator because she raised concerns on Facebook about whether transwomen would have physical attributes that would disadvantage cisgendered female athletes; and an effort to recall a mayor because of the role she played in a school board hiring decision.

I am not without bias in these matters, but as I do not know all the facts, I am not qualified to pass judgment. I greatly fear, however, that the preservation of our democracy is in jeopardy.

Our system of representative democracy envisions the election, or appointment of individuals to govern on our behalf. That does not mean that every constituent will be happy with every decision an elected official makes. There are ways to appeal unfavorable decisions, including through the judicial system. And ultimately, if enough people are displeased, the official may not be reelected. And there are times when we have to accept a decision we may not like. That, in very superficial terms, is the way our representative democracy operates.

Of late, however, it seems that almost everyone who believes they have a “better idea” can initiate some sort of protest against elected or appointed officials for the slightest of provocations. And the danger is that our pitchforks and torches reaction to the perceived mistakes of our representatives plays into the hands of those whom I fear most greatly: the ultra-conservatives who seek to promote divisiveness, shrink the role of government, and to capture governmental agencies and the judiciary, as described in Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s book, “The Scheme.”

In the meantime, citizens must have the humility to know that their different ideas are not necessarily better ideas, they are merely different. The outcry against the modification of AP math, for example, could be expanded through the free exchange of ideas to include consideration of whether we are placing too much pressure on children to succeed, which in turn might be a factor contributing to the alarming rise in mental health issues among teenagers.

During my brief tenure on a local school committee, I grew disheartened by the lack of interest in discussing the overuse of technology in the classroom, the negative impact of social media, and the negative aspects of high-stakes testing.

My statements were tolerated, but my views were not consistent with the unofficial dogmas of the prevailing culture. Few people are interested in exploring whether an overemphasis on STEM, and on the unattainable goal of every child going to college, damages the wonderful “square pegs” who for myriad reasons do not strive to fit into the “round holes” that were drilled in an overly competitive zeitgeist. We dare not discuss that.

In a democracy, citizens should feel free to respectfully express their views and to raise questions without being censured by self-appointed “experts.” As a person who was not spared the rod when I was growing up, I learned painfully that people may be coerced into behaving a certain way, but they cannot be coerced into loving, or into changing their core beliefs.

As society opens its arms more widely in order to embrace more people and more concepts, it is essential that we be able to ask questions and discuss awkward topics, in order to gain understanding, and not solely to impose our views onto others. Not every issue must be confronted with belligerence, especially when collegial discussion may produce far more satisfying results.

I am not suggesting that protests and marches are ineffective or should be avoided. I am suggesting that there are preliminary steps that may be more effective, such as talking with each other in an atmosphere in which we need not weigh our every word or avoid asking questions for fear they might offend someone.

Above all, we must all be certain that we may not always be correct and, therefore, there are times when a respectful deference for lawful authority is the best course of action.

Can’t we just be nicer to each other?

Jim Palermo lives in Southampton.

]]>