Barry Manilow versus freedom of speech

The free and open exchange of ideas is a celebrated value and goal of liberty-loving nations worldwide. Americans treasure the ability to hear and be heard. All citizens are entitled to free speech. And the right to be heard does not include the right to silence those with whom you disagree.

However, seventies relic Barry Manilow seems to have missed the memo. Manilow provided ample evidence of this when he backed out of a long-scheduled interview on ABC’s “The View” last week. The singer refused to appear because producers were unwilling to bar the more ideologically conservative “View” hostess, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, from the set during Manilow’s show visit.

Manilow elaborated on his Web site, “I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy [Behar], Barbara [Walters] and Whoopi [Goldberg], but not Elisabeth Hasselback [sic]. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out. It’s really too bad because I’ve always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs.”

To clarify, Barry Manilow was to appear on the program to discuss the release of one of his new greatest hits albums, a topic entirely unrelated to politics. This leads one to the inevitable question: How exactly does discussing ’70s love ballads with a woman, who happens to vote Republican, compromise his beliefs?

“The View,” whether fortunately or unfortunately, mirrors the overall health of the American conscience. If a “View” guest cites political differences as a legitimate reason to refuse a conversation with a hostess, one can only wonder what that says about the current state of discourse in the country. Apparently the fear to offend or be offended reached such a level that Barry Manilow cannot see it fit to discuss his singing career and upcoming album with a woman who has a different perspective on the world than he. To prevent dialogue due to disagreement is nefarious enough; to prevent discussion regarding issues wholly irrelevant to politics seems unfathomable. Nevertheless, it seems Barry Manilow has made the unfathomable, fathomable.

In a manner reminiscent of elementary school squabbles, Manilow has not shied away from stating both his motives — to silence Hasselbeck and undermine diversity — and what he deems to be the best course of action — pure avoidance. “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.”

Many suspect that the crooner’s friendship with former “View” co-host Rosie O’Donnell, no fan of Elisabeth Hasselbeck, provided Manilow further incentive to shun the “dangerous” Hasselbeck. O’Donnell, as many will remember, left “The View” in May after a number of contentious disagreements with Hasselbeck.

Barry Manilow’s juvenile evasion of Hasselbeck is a humorous yet insidious act. Where would society be if we all refused to associate with those with whom we have ideological differences? Thankfully, Barry Manilow is no longer popular enough to set trends. In fact, the Associated Press reported on Sept. 17 that a Colorado judge was sentencing individuals to an hour of Barry Manilow tunes as punishment for noise level violations.

My hope is that Barry Manilow is an anomaly and that most Americans understand the importance of productive discourse. It is nonetheless erroneous to view an episode such as this one with indifference. Though small in scale, it demonstrates that the political divide in the country, when paired with increased levels of societal sensitivity can change people’s ability to simply communicate.

Caroline May is a Will Rice College junior.

Back to top