The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1951-10-12
Ohio States Right TO
A Fundamental Freedom

laws are enacted for the common good they
are net made Just for the sake of making regula
tions. Assuredly they are not for the purpose Of
annoying people This is particularly true of the
laws of God. His laws arc those OF kind and low
Ing father made for the ultimate salvation and well
fare of His children. His laws arc irksome only TO
those who do not love Him, who prefer to give
themselves up TO their passions Such people do not
realize that all too soon they will be the slaves of
their passions and there are no greater tyrants.
In this day when so much emphasis is being pac
ed upon freedom-froedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, freedom from fcar-it is we'll to remind
ourselves that freedom can be true and lasting only
under the laws of God, and other laws enacted in
justice for the common good. 1T is useless as we'll
silly to appeal TO ones rights to ones claims on
freedom in order 10 flaun the laws Of God and Of So
clety. Just il is not denial OF ones freedom
TO say that he may drive only on one side Of the
street 1t is not denial Of ones freedom Of
speech TO say that he cannot speak everywhere and
say anything Thus it is not a denial of freedom
OF speech 10 say that may not shout out raucous
ly in theater, in the classroom, in church Nor
is II denial of freedom to say that may not
utter foul, vulgar and obscene language anywhere
and everywhere. Again, IT is not a denial of this
fundamental freedom to say that one may not stir
up to dlSsensIon and revolt without cause
1t should be clear, therefore that to deny people
like the much.talkedabout Dr. Rugg opportunity to
pedde his wares at Ohio State University is not
denial of his freedom Of speech The citizens OF
are entitled TO freedom in choosing who may address
them They cannot be forced, have their students
forced to listen to principles contrary to the very
fundamental freedoms TO which the advocates of
DR. Rugg appeal. Or. Rugg can speak much and as
often as he likes, but there is not denial of his
freedom in saying that Ohio State must not provide
sounding board for his iik On the contrary II Is
denial Of the freedom Of Ohio State University to
say that 1t must accept and give opportunity to such
people.
one could readily understand what would happen
II some lecturer Al the University should advocate
vulgar and profane speech, One could sympahze
with the uproar that would ensue If an invited lee
turer would give himself 10 teaching his listeners
to be dishonest III business, to cheat in games. OF
encourage them to enjoy the eXharation of alcohol
or drugs So too no one would hesitate 10 take
violent action if a guest lecturer to advocate
sexuahty and bcstlaity 70 the young people at the
University. All such things evil and wrong. No
one would tolerate them. Further. everyone would
he justified IN protesting If person, having repu
tation for advocating such things were 10 be asked
10 speak at the University Even though the speaker
would not IN this particular instance peddie his
evil wares The very fact that he would have been
invited would be loud approval of the works for
which he is known. Every taxpayer has right TO
demand that Ohio State University give no approval
10 evil
II is not necessary TO add that Communism is
one OF the worst evils of the modern world that It
is as deceitlul and sly the devil himself We do
not care where Dr Rupe speaks but VIC hold that
Ohio State University is of the multitude OF
places that should not be forced to honor him with
an invitation 10 exercise his freedom of speech The
University is also exercising a fundamental freedom