You can't say that in America. Bullies on the left and right shut down 'divisive' ideas.

Let me begin with an apology. I realize readers might view what I've written as hurtful. And they might see my ideas as unnecessarily divisive.

That’s what the student editor of the Emory Law Journal called an essay by University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander, a self-described conservative who rejects the prevailing academic consensus around race.

Most scholars attribute high rates of poverty and incarceration among African Americans to racism, pointing especially to the continued effects of slavery and legalized segregation. But Alexander blames these problems on the dissolution of two-parent Black families, which he roots in Great Society welfare programs.

Alexander is wrong on his history, which downplays the many ways that past government actions still handicap opportunity and mobility for Black Americans. But the Emory Law Journal also is wrong to withdraw its offer to publish Alexander’s essay unless he removed his discussion of racism. (Alexander declined, and two other contributors to the journal withdrew their own submissions in protest.)

Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day

In an email to Alexander, Editor-in-Chief Danielle Kerker Goldstein acknowledged that his essay raised “fair points of intellectual disagreement.” Even so, she and her fellow editors “take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.”

I’m sure they did. But once we decide to remove ideas on those grounds, we can censor pretty much anything. And that will make it harder for us to talk – and to learn – about race and everything else.

If you think otherwise, have a look at the dozens of recent Republican-sponsored state bills to restrict classroom discussions around race in American history. Most of them would prohibit the teaching of “divisive concepts.”

And what, you might ask, are those? Everyone has their own definition, which is the heart of the problem. When you don’t like something, call it divisive. It’s a great way to shut it down.

'Divisive' is in eye of the beholder

Many of the state measures barring divisive concepts draw from a model bill developed by conservative lawyer Stanley Kurtz, specifically prohibiting schools from teaching that “the advent of slavery ... constituted the true founding of the United States,” or that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.”

Got that? America is a land of freedom: always was, and always will be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being “unnecessarily divisive,” as the law journal's chief editor might put it.

But Goldstein says denying systemic racism is divisive, whereas Kurtz' bill says asserting it is divisive.

Who’s right? In a democracy, the only way we can find out is by talking with each other. But if you can shut down dissent by calling it divisive, that conversation is not going to happen. Whoever has the most power will encode their view and eradicate everything else.

Fear drives efforts to silence others

Let’s be clear: The Emory Law Journal has the right to publish whatever it chooses. And there’s a huge difference between a journal turning down an essay because of its “divisive” ideas and a state legislature prohibiting schools from discussing them.

But they come from the same place: fear. That’s the engine of censorship, in all times and places. We’re afraid of dangerous (sorry: divisive) ideas. So we try to blot them out, lest they cause harm to listeners.

And that patronizes Americans, all in the guise of protecting them.

In a fall 2020 survey by the American Historical Association, roughly three-quarters of respondents agreed that it was acceptable for schools to teach about the harm that some people have done to others, even if that subject matter causes learners discomfort. There was agreement (not divisiveness!) on that score across race, gender and level of education. Nor was there significant difference along party affiliation: 78% of Democrats supported the teaching of discomfiting history, and 74% of Republicans did the same.

So bullies on both sides of the political aisle are trying to stamp out free speech by raising the false specter of divisive ideas. The only way to fight them is for the rest of us to raise our voices. I’ll never apologize for doing that.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the co-author of "Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn."

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is free speech being limited by bullies on the left and right?