Free to Choose

Dec. 18, 2015

I was in Los Angeles recently and found my way to the “Museum of Tolerance,” a beautiful complex in West L.A. that also houses the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Outside, a line of beat-up Los Angeles County school buses were parked, having brought loads of inner city kids to the museum to learn about this complicated issue of “tolerance.”

In the museum, teenagers were guided through parts of history that must have seemed distant and ancient, and parts that for many of them were all too familiar. There were displays about Anne Frank and the Holocaust to be sure, for many of them a first exposure to the shocking events of 80 years ago in Nazi Germany. How do you explain the murder of millions to kids, anyway?

But there were also displays about the “Freedom Riders” in the segregationist South of the 1960s, the march by Dr. Martin Luther King’s followers across the Edwin Pettis Bridge in Selma, and George Wallace promising, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” at his 1963 inauguration as Governor of Alabama.

One display, about the more recent events in Ferguson, Mo., was something to which these kids could easily relate. Many of them have been stopped by police for no apparent reason, aside from their ethnicity.

Tolerance…it’s a complicated issue. Indeed, my visit to the museum was not entirely just to see the exhibits. I was there to discuss the potential of replicating a presentation I had come across years earlier in Amsterdam at the Anne Frank House. It is called “Free2Choose.”

“Free2Choose” was designed to encourage people to think about the importance of human rights. These rights, enshrined in our Constitution and universal international declarations, are pillars of every democratic society. But the exhibit seeks to demonstrate that no right is absolute. What happens to these rights if the protection of democracy is at stake? And what happens when these fundamental rights come into conflict with each other?

The “Free2Choose” exhibit uses short video clip examples from around the world of how human rights can conflict with each other or with the democratic rule of law.

Unlike most museum displays, “Free2Choose” requires the visitor to participate. Here’s how it works: The visitors are seated in a small viewing room. On the screen, actors play out a scenario. At the end of the video, each audience member votes on a question and the results from that group are tabulated; first the collective opinion of those in the room, then the cumulative opinion of all visitors who have answered the question over the past decade. The exhibit had a lasting effect on me and, I suspect, most people who stopped to participate in it.

In one scenario, one question is whether you, the viewer, support freedom of assembly. Nearly everyone in my group voted yes. Then a new scene is played out where a small group of “Pro-Life” demonstrators picket the entrance to a women’s clinic – freedom of assembly or interfering with someone else’s Constitutional rights? That’s a bit tougher for many people. They might view abortion as a sin and believe such demonstrations are justified. On the other hand, they respect the Supreme Court’s authority and believe the demonstrators are possibly scaring away women who need counseling and services the clinic provides.

The next scene shows uniformed neo-Nazis giving “Sieg Heil” salutes and harassing and threatening Jews entering a synagogue. Freedom of assembly or dangerous infringement of religious freedom? Should neo-Nazis have a right to free expression, anytime, anyplace, even when it instills fear in others? I found that scenario particularly difficult and eventually voted that the Nazis should be allowed to demonstrate; my family voted the opposite way.

In another segment, freedom of expression is confronted by the case of a magazine the insults a global religious figure whom many people consider God-like. Is this legitimate free speech or a provocation? Should the state decide if it should be allowed?

The presentation ran through many such basic human rights — freedoms enshrined in our Constitution that on the surface seem sacrosanct. Yet when we dig into the details of each of these assumed freedoms, dilemmas arise. Should the right to privacy be limited in the interests of countering terrorism? Should recruiting for the Islamic State be banned from the Internet? Who will make these judgments? For me, the discussion I had at the Museum of Tolerance and the image of young people learning about this subject compelled me to think about the political debate underway in this country about immigration, Muslims and American values.

I imagine many of us will be engaged in just such discussions in this holiday season. Indeed, we might be forced to make some hard choices: Get into an argument with a relative, or let statements that offend us pass without comment?

Many of us will be sitting down to dinner with people who watch different news channels, listen to different talk radio, might post things on Facebook that we find disturbing, or say things that we take on-board in silent horror. So here’s the tricky part: Perhaps one of your relatives will cross a line, saying something about a minority group, a country, someone’s sexual orientation or a public personality that you feel is out of line. This is your own “Free2Choose” moment. You can let the remark pass without comment, or you can challenge it.

Your kids will likely be at the table and, at least the older ones will be carefully observing what you do next. They probably know your views on the “hot button” issues discussed at home. But will you stand up to defend your views… or will you keep silent? You are “Free2Choose.”

Jack Segal is a retired diplomat who, with his wife, Karen, co-chairs the International Affairs Forum (IAF) at NMC. The IAF’s next speaker on Feb. 18, 2016, will be Dr. Ingrid Staroste- Sandole, a German-American professor who will discuss how Germans are grappling with such issues as free speech, refugees and terrorism.