In recent years, the need for Western societies to tolerate diverse cultures has been ingrained in their young generations. My recent experience teaching law students from Western democracies shows that their uncritical embrace of “tolerance” and “diversity” has made many lose their critical thinking ability. Ironically, but perhaps unsurprisingly, many offered less sensible and moral judgments on critical issues, such as freedom of expression, than students from developing — often authoritarian — countries did, and it would have been funny or merely disappointing if the implications were not so dire.

Worse still, it enables the erosion of freedom of expression as a fundamental principle and cornerstone of the civilized world.

My first class on freedom of expression (comparative perspectives) in Berlin introduced students from different backgrounds to the Enlightenment tradition and various key figures, including Locke, Kant, and Voltaire, and the three purposes of free speech: the pursuit of truth, democratic governance, and individual development. I followed up with the question: “One Western scholar and head of a university claimed that freedom of expression is ‘Eurocentric’ and would lead to the suppression of minorities, and so it needs to be remade in an era of globalization. Do you agree with this statement?” Having travelled among different cultures, I strongly object to this statement. From my perspective, the statement was likely not motivated by any ill intent and was merely a clumsy attempt by a Westerner to show tolerance towards minorities. However, it is factually wrong and only serves to reinforce racism and prejudices against non-Western people. Worse still, it enables the erosion of freedom of expression as a fundamental principle and cornerstone of the civilized world. That it came from the head of a university was deeply disturbing. (RELATED: Free Speech Restrictions Are a Problem)

I was pleasantly surprised by the responses of a few students from non-Western authoritarian countries.  A student from China found the statement extremely ignorant and outright condescending: it assumed that non-Western people do not understand or deserve freedom of expression as much as Europeans/Westerners do — an assumption easily refuted by historical facts. Another student, who settled in Germany as a refugee, said that the scholar’s statement was alarming as it reminded her of her home country’s authoritarian government, which routinely dismissed fundamental principles as “Eurocentric” to deny its people their basic liberties. (RELATED: Battle for Free Speech: EU/Europe Deploys Its Artillery)

Not knowing much about these students’ backgrounds aside from their countries of origin, I strongly appreciate their answers. In particular, the Chinese student had to act within the confines of his home country’s political system once he went home. Yet he was able and ready to offer a thoughtful, intelligent answer in a liberal learning environment. Their answers put to shame many classmates from Western democracies.

Some very vocal Western students agreed vehemently with the scholar’s statement. One such student remarked that democratic governance and individual development, both key purposes of free speech, are understandably given low priority in developing or non-Western societies. Another claimed, in a self-deprecating manner, that we should not assume the Western tradition to be the best and only way. This assumption, she suggested, is indicative of arrogance. Reminding them of the Enlightenment idea of innate rights, I asked whether they believed that people in authoritarian countries should at the very least be entitled to the same amount of freedom of speech, despite the laws imposed by their governments. One responded affirmatively but added that even laws deviating from the Western standard need to be respected.

I was unsettled by their readiness to deviate from, if not abandon, the Enlightenment tradition. I interpreted it to be the result of years of indoctrination by radical leftwing teachers, who instilled in them the belief that “tolerance” and “diversity” need to be embraced at all costs, without reminding them that cultural relativism must not be taken too far. Those are the same virtue-signaling scholars and teachers who betray their moral inconsistency and sheer hypocrisy, as they demand respect for authoritarian governments and their laws while proclaiming sympathy for political prisoners who went to jail for defying those governments. (RELATED: The Crisis in England Is a Crisis for Civilization)

After drawing examples from non-Western cultures to explain why freedom of expression is by no means a “Eurocentric” idea and why the scholar’s statement carries racist implications, I told the students to assume that free speech is indeed a Western idea and that certain aspects of Western culture are objectively superior to non-Western ones. I then asked them whether it would be necessary to lower their standards for the sake of “tolerance” and “sensitivity” in a globalizing world. I began with a provocative analogy: If a Western man finds a non-Western woman being sexually assaulted by a man from her culture, should the Western man interfere? One student promptly said, “Yes.” I then offered a more nuanced analogy: while marital rape is an offence in most Western democracies, some religions and societies will never recognize women’s right to be free from marital rape. If an immigrant from those religious groups or societies claims that the idea of “rape” is “Eurocentric” and therefore needs to be remade in an era of globalization, how would they react? (RELATED: Europe’s Urban Decline Exposed)

The second analogy made them silent and ponder over the fundamental nature of free speech. Nonetheless, a student later emailed me asking whether people who have never enjoyed certain freedoms and might not even know what they are missing may truly benefit from having those freedoms. The email made me sigh and marvel at the extent of the harm that the uncritical embrace of “tolerance” and cultural relativism has done to young people, and the amount of “de-woking” that is needed to enable them to think sensibly and truly respect the dignity of people coming from different cultures.

As frustrating as my experience seemed to be, it is a testimony to how important it is to use the Canadian scholar’s ill-informed and prejudicial statement to educate the younger generation about the universal principle. While some might not be receptive to this message, others would wise up and heed the warning against racism and prejudices disguised as goodwill and compromising freedom of expression in the name of tolerance and diversity.

READ MORE from Amy Lai:

Radical Academics Seed the Ground for Violence