The Iron Law of Reciprocity

I stopped into my local independent bookstore last week to hear Geoffrey Stone speak on his book, Sex and the Constitution.  I have heard Stone speak on several occasions and have had great respect for him as the engineer of the Chicago Principles, The University of Chicago statement regarding free speech on campus, which has been adopted by 35 schools (at last count) across the country.  The Chicago Principles is a counterweight to the propensity of universities to restrict free speech on campus, enforce “safe spaces,” issue “trigger warnings,” with a particular emphasis on controlling free speech by conservatives.

But my regard for Stone plummeted last year when he buckled to the demands of an Iranian student who implored him to stop using the “N” word to illustrate as an example in class.  I find the “N” word hateful and abhorrent, but I find attempts to constrain free speech more abhorrent and dangerous in a free and open society.

But this week, the bottom fell out during his presentation.  He talked about the Griswald decision (birth control) and marriage equality (Obergefell) but most of his discussion centered on Roe v. Wade.  It is his firm belief that this court will overturn Roe, and that 60% of the states will follow by banning abortion (even if Roe were to be overturned, I think that is wildly off the mark. No more than 5 states would ban the procedure).  He bemoaned the politicized court, and stated that with a few exceptions, five justices now vote in a block—as Mitch McConnell would want them to do.

But what really got my attention were two things.  First, was his open contempt for Evangelical Christians (but refrained from mentioning opposition to Roe by the Catholic Church).  But second, and most disturbing was this statement. When asked what could stop Roe from being overturned, Stone jokingly replied, “You could have a couple of justices assassinated.”  Afterward, even my progressive friends admitted they were taken aback by his comment.  

 I have come to call this a violation of the Iron Law of Reciprocity. 

The comment  by Stone, made flippantly and in jest, caused me to think about what would have happened if a similarly situated academic such as Victor Davis Hanson would have said something analogous, “You know, Oberbefell could be reversed if someone pushed Ruth Bader Ginsburg down the stairs,”  or, “Gerrymandering could be handled if someone put arsenic in John Roberts’s coffee.”  The uproar wouldn’t stop and Hanson would be forced out of his position.  But coming from the Left, things like this pass without comment.

While Evangelical Christians are regarded as troglodytes, folks like Ilhan Omar (who, as if on cue retweeted a tweet celebrating the assault on Rand Paul), and Islamism more generally are afforded a deference not available to other religious groups in the U.S.  Geoffrey Stone wouldn’t dare speak in the same contemptuous tone about Muslims as he does Evangelical Christians.  Omar’s remarks about Jews and white men would get her pilloried in the press if someone else on the right said similar things about gays or blacks.  But Democrats couldn’t even bring themselves to condemn her remarks.

I have developed my own aphorism for this phenomenon.  It is this—you may wish to tolerate Islam, but it has yet to demonstrate that Islam is willing to fully reciprocate.  As one Polish lawmaker put it, “Sure, you can build mosques in Poland, as soon as we can build Catholic churches in Saudi Arabia.” Likewise, I observed that Christianity has been the object of satire in comedic works like Monty Python’s The Life of Brian and Mormonism was skewered in the musical The Book of Mormon.  No sane person would attend opening night of Muhammed the Musical with dancing girls in burkas.  We all know what would likely happen.  Until Islam can comply with the Iron Law of Reciprocity—that is, we should be free to satirize it without fear of physical harm, we should be wary of importing it wholesale and giving it equal stature.

My grandmother often used to say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  That principle still holds true.  If one abhors language of violence toward public officials, it should be not be used even in jest by someone like Geoffrey Stone.  If you joke about having a gun at the airport check-in, you know what happens.  Likewise, Islamism should not be afforded any greater protection from criticism or satire than any other faith.  You don’t get a free pass from suggesting or joking about violence and your religion doesn’t get accorded a special exemption.  Perhaps I should start a campaign for a new Constitutional amendment—the Iron Law of Reciprocity.