Some signatories to the LETTER have used their power to stifle speech they didn't like.

But the point isn't hypocrisy. That's obvious, banal.

It illustrates that no one believes in *absolute* free speech. The real debate is about when speech can be restricted and who decides.

And this is the real substantive objection. The LETTER is premised on the idea that woke lefties just don't value free speech. But that's nonsense and mischaracterizes the left position.

The real dispute is about context, power, and accountability.

So Cary Nelson would say that it's not an infringement on Steven Salaita's freedom of speech to deny him a position at the University of Illinois. Presumably, Steven Salaita disagrees!

One party thinks that's fair play. The other party says it's punishing ideas you don't like.

I happen to agree with Salaita and disagree with Nelson.

But I don't need to presume that Nelson secretly isn't committed enough to the "idea" of free speech, or that him "believing in free speech more" would solve it. That's a meaningless indictment rooted in platitudes.

My disagreement with Nelson is not about his commitment, or lack thereof, to an abstract platitude. My disagreement is rooted in a material analysis of how he used his power. He wants to use power one way. I say that's wrong.

Yelling "You proles just don't value free speech enough!" without a material analysis of when and how "free speech" meets a limit is rhetorical parlor games. It's debate club bullshit. It tells you nothing of the real disagreement and less about how we could resolve it.