Yesterday I wrote a bit about the Harvard English department's politically-motivated cancellation of Irish poet Tom Paulin's poetry reading, focussing in particular on the unethical role taken by Rita Goldberg, a lecturer in English who orchestrated the protest that led to the cancellation by telling her students what to think about the visit and then instructing them about how to protest it. Today's Guardian has more from Goldberg:

Rita Goldberg, who was involved in the Harvard protests, said that she supported Mr Paulin's right to free speech but felt she had a duty to inform the English department of controversies in Britain they might not have known about.

"I was very reluctant to do this, but I think Tom Paulin has crossed the line. Free speech is one thing, hate speech is another," Professor Goldberg said. "I think anti-semitism is on the rise, and Tom Paulin must be quite confused about his own relationship to Jews. He used a public platform to advocate violence, and that is incitement."

Israel, she said, "is a democracy with an active critical population of its own, and to make everyone a great mush of Zionists and Jews who are somehow like the SS has to be inflammatory. We all know in our gut when speech is hate speech and when it's perfectly rational discourse."

First, an aside: between this woman and the self-righteous literary twits at UT Knoxville, I think I can fairly say that the deservedly low public opinion of English professors can--and should--sink even lower than it already has. I say this as one who thought there was nowhere to go but up.

Now the fisk:

I was very reluctant to do this, but I think Tom Paulin has crossed the line.
No you weren't reluctant to "do this" (conveniently vague wording, that). You were thrilled to "do this." You got a charge out of "doing this." You are still getting a charge out of it. That's why you are talking up your role as Chief Sensitivity Officer of Harvard English in the media. Let's be precise about what it is you "did": you decided Paulin "crossed the line" (because he crossed your personal line); you convinced yourself that what you personally wanted was what was best for your students; you manipulated them into staging your protest by telling him Paulin's visit would hurt and offend them--when really you were hurt and offended by the prospect of his visit. You used your students. And now you are soaking in your pitiful little bath of glory when you should be hanging your head in shame.

Free speech is one thing, hate speech is another.
Wrong. There are some who argue that, but an argument is not a law. As of today the Constitution is still in the business of protecting unpopular speech. Hate, for the record, is not a crime. It may be morally repellant, it may even be frightening. But it is not a crime--not in the U.S. anyway. There are powerful ethical reasons for refusing to legislate matters of private conscience. There are also powerful practical reasons for not doing so, the first of which is that you can't define "hate speech." One person's hate is another person's truth.

I think anti-semitism is on the rise, and Tom Paulin must be quite confused about his own relationship to Jews. He used a public platform to advocate violence, and that is incitement.
The first point is irrelevant. What does the increase in anti-semitism have to do with Paulin's right to express his opinion? And what do your personal speculations about Paulin's mental health have to do with anything besides your own prurience? The second point is a distortion of fact. Paulin expressed violent views about Jews. They are shocking, even mind-boggling in their cruelty. But they are not incitement. He does not issue orders, he does not exhort particular individuals to specific acts of violence. He isn't doing much to promote reasoned opinion or considered tolerance with his statements, but he isn't inciting anyone to anything, either.

Israel "is a democracy with an active critical population of its own, and to make everyone a great mush of Zionists and Jews who are somehow like the SS has to be inflammatory.

True, but inflammatory speech is not illegal.

We all know in our gut when speech is hate speech and when it's perfectly rational discourse.
Fascinating and telling words from our expert in textual interpretation. They tell us what she is "thinking" with, or more precisely, they tell us that she is not thinking at all. She is acting on what she "knows" in her "gut." She is letting instinct, not careful consideration or reasoned argument, determine her opinions and her actions. She is doing this in a pedagogical setting, and it sounds like she is having quite an impact. For the record, "we" don't "all know in our gut" anything of the kind. This is a weak defense of an indefensible position. In its appeal to instinct and in its use of that appeal to cover over the utterly fickle, inconsistent, and self-serving nature of the statement--which licenses hate to be anything the person in power wants it to be--it is also the sort of thinking that we have learned historically to revile as an enabler of fascism.

The good news is that at least there is one English professor out there who not only gets it, but has enough spine to speak up. The Guardian balances Goldberg's irrational commentary with this from Jim Shapiro, Paulin's colleague at Columbia:

Jim Shapiro condemned Harvard's actions as "disastrous".

"I say this as somebody who is a Zionist, who teaches Jewish studies, who has opposed petitions on my campus for the university to divest from Israel," he said. "The idea of rescinding an invitation because someone has not passed a political litmus test establishes a very dangerous precedent.

"Do I think Tom said a stupid thing? Absolutely, and I know few people who haven't said stupid things. Do I think Tom is an anti-semite? I can say from extensive discussions with him on the Middle East that he isn't. These students have an absolute right to heckle Tom Paulin, but they do not have the right to force the university to rescind the invitation."

Well said. It's worth noting, too, that Harvard's original plan for dealing with the Goldberg-engineered unrest surrounding Paulin's visit was to provide an open forum after his reading where all views could be freely aired. They almost got it right. And then they punted.