The trouble began last fall, after black activist Sister Souljah was paid $11,000 to speak at the University of Louisville. Souljah--who is perhaps best known for commenting, after the L.A. riots, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"--quite predictably ruffled some feathers with her talk (which was, by prior arrangement, not recorded). While some said the point of the talk was to empower blacks, others felt it was to deride whites. Shortly after, the local KKK chapter decided it wanted equal time--and equal pay--on the U of L campus. It also demanded that the school dismantle its diversity program, which it considered to be racist. Excerpts are quoted in the school paper, which exhibited exemplary fidelity in reproducing the self-discrediting illiteracy of the Kentucky KKK spokesman.

Of course, the KKK can demand whatever it wants. Demands themselves aren't compelling arguments, and the U of L had no obligation to listen to them. Likewise, as long as no campus group wanted to sponsor a KKK speaker, the campus community could rest relatively assured that no one from the KKK would be delivering speeches in a campus forum. But the posting of flyers is another matter entirely, and this is where things have gotten terrifically complicated at the U of L in recent months.

Last winter, the Klan started posting flyers all over the U of L campus (I have not seen these flyers myself--if anyone has a copy and can send along a scanned image, I'll post it). Flyers were found stuck on an outdoor campus map, on trashcans, on bike racks, on the ground, and even tucked under the windshield wipers of cars. Complaints came in. People were offended and frightened and disturbed. Emotions aside, there was a legitimate issue with the manner in which the KKK had disseminated its message: the university doesn't allow anyone to post flyers in these places. It maintained concrete kiosks for flyer-posting purposes. And so university administrators notified the KKK of its error. But the way it did so may result in a lawsuit.

First, the U of L removed the concrete kiosks that had formerly been the approved place for posting flyers. Now the KKK can't advertise there--and neither can anyone else. In attempting to suppress the offensive message of the KKK flyers, the U of L has deprived everyone else, on campus and off, from publicizing messages on outdoor kiosks. There are still indoor boards that students and faculty can use. But off campus groups and businesses no longer have a place to post.

Second, the KKK members who posted the flyers were banned for life from the U of L. In a May 12 letter, Monica Jones, assistant director of student life, wrote, "Due to posting insensitive and offensive material on campus, this letter is to inform you that effective immediately, you are considered `persona non grata' from the entire University of Louisville campus until further notice from this office." Notice that Jones does not ban the KKK for violating posting policies, but for offending members of the campus community with their speech. She can't do that--and she knows it (when confronted by a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal, she hedges). Consider, too, that the ban not only bars them from setting foot on campus in their present capacity as KKK promoters, but also from registering to study at U of L (they can, however, attend athletic events, where, presumably, their money talks louder than their views). That's a pretty extreme punishment for having failed to obey the U of L's posting policies. One wonders whether less offensive groups who stick flyers on cars and such get similar treatment.

Now things are heating up even more: U of L professor Ede Warner, unsatisfied with the administration's ban of the men who posted the flyers, wants to banish the KKK itself from the campus. Currently, if KKK members who have not personally been banished for their poor understanding of campus posting rules wish, they can stand inside one of the school's free speech zones and distribute their flyers there. That's not acceptable to Warner, who argues that the KKK should be barred from campus because it is a terrorist organization (this argument, experts note, is not likely to fly in court). The KKK, for its part, has appealed to both the FBI and the ACLU for help preserving the expressive rights of its members. Right now, as unlikely as it may seem, it looks like the KKK may have the moral high ground.

The U of L has always been a bit shaky on free speech. It's one of those wrong-headed "free speech zone" schools, meaning that instead of obeying the law and declaring the entire campus to be a free speech zone (given reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions), this public institution cordones off free expression on campus. There's some good solid law explaining why a public university can't do that, but they do it anyway.

Rabidly racist speech is clearly the extreme test case for a university's commitment to free speech. The University of Louisville is now being tested. In its official statements, it passes the present test with flying colors: see this FAQ on the U of L website. But in practice, things seem to be playing out a bit differently.

More as more becomes available.

Hat tip: Ralph Luker

Sister Souljah (Sister Soul Soldier?):

who is perhaps best known for commenting, after the L.A. riots, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

This is incitement to riot. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it is not protected speach.

U of L:

It is indicative of the moral collapse of the University that administrators can't find a deeper reason bar the Klan than, "They might hurt somebody's feelings."

There must be standards.

Actually, there's a great deal of debate among advocates and critics of speech codes about whether Sister Souljah's comment really does count as incitement. My composition class is dealing with this and related issues for their research papers, and we've compiled quite a bibliography on the issue of hate speech; if anyone is interested, I'll make it available.

Alison, I am interested. Feel free to e-mail to me as you see fit (if you don't mind). Thanks.

Let's see. The KKK, with more than a century of murderous racism, versus Sister Souljah, with more than a decade of idiocy. While I want to weigh in on this neo-Clash of the Titans, isn't the Klan underestimating itself? After all, one can at least somehow envision a young, African American woman's frustration in a system that isn't exactly in her favor. But the Klan? Demanding equal time with a black woman? Oh, how the mighty have fallen. My guess is that the Klansmen don't much want to think about historical power dynamics. Or for that matter (irony of ironies), about state's rights, like, say, the state of Kentucky's right to have who they want speak, or not to have perhaps America's single biggest blight appear on a speaker's platform. But roll on you brave, gutless masked bigots. Bob Jones University might have a speaker's spot open.
dc

My guess is that the Klansmen don't much want to think about historical power dynamics.

"History" is not a Constitutional concept when it comes to guarantees of rights.

That is why the Nazi party, which has killed far more people than the Klan in a far shorter time, is still allowed to exist in this country and to make their case to anyone who will listen.

The college was on far better ground when its exclusion of the Klan was based on policy. Now that it has targeted the Klan for "special" status, it is likely to lose.

What's worse is that the Klan's message and mission are helped by heavy-handed responses like this.

While I totally hate the KKK and what it stands for, in what way is Sister Souljah's message any different from the KKK message? Seems like her message is just the black version of their message to me. And for a public university to pay someone to speak this hate propaganda, which is what her message is, and then to label the KKK as being different is to be rather ingenuous.

There are a lot of African Americans out there who can give speeches that are not hate messages as Sister Souljah's is and should the university bring them there, all to the good. I think the university has gotten themselves caught by the proverbial "short hairs" in this one and is pedaling very hard to obfuscate that fact.

The standard for incitement is "direct incitement to imminent lawless action." Unless you believe there was a credible possibility that Souljah's speech would cause the listeners to immediately start killing white folks for a week, then it's racist, offensive, and generally asinine, but it's nonetheless legal. A large part of this is context. If someone were to say "let's kill white folks for a change" to an angry mob, that would be illegal, but if someone were to write the sentence in an op-ed it would clearly be hyperbole to make a point.

And Derek is right. Formenting racial hatred is always a bad thing but it takes a deliborate effort to ignore the fact that anti-black racism has a much nastier history to it than anti-white racism. This doesn't justify tolerating a double standard for what we consider offensive, but at the same time, don't lose touch with reality. We are talking about an organization that terrorized large numbers of Americans continuously from Reconstruction through the 1970s (with the exception of a twenty year hiatus around the turn of the century). Sister Souljah and those who think like her comparatively pale in their impact.

As long as it comes across and can be 'gotten', I don't see why or how a less than eloquent or even 'illiterate' presentation necessarily discredits an idea or sentiment or position being presented.

EH--

In the abstract, you are right. But in practice, people judge other people's competence and credibility by their self-presentation, particularly in professional or formal situations. Official statements from major organizations simply are not going to be credible if they are riddled with spelling errors and don't obey the laws of grammar and syntax.

You make good points, which mirror what I've been saying lately on this same subject. I think it's interesting that all of this really was spurred by the comments of a local radio talk show host, who was the first to raise the Souljah=KKK argument. She argued that UofL should bring the Klan in if they were going to pay Sister Souljah to speak, and the KKK responded to that controversy. Students and some administrators have been raising the "terrorist" argument for months now, and I'm still think it's weak, as long as the speech itself remains legal (and there's been nothing in the local press coverage to suggest the Klan has been advocating violence). The law should be on the Klan's side - past actions, even if violent, shouldn't disqualify legal speech even if the speech offends. I also think the violation of posting guidelines argument is weak; certainly the punishment doesn't fit the alleged offense. Further, I suspect the University lets other violators of these rules go by with a wink and a nod - is anyone putting flyers on windshields banned for life? News reports in the Courier-Journal suggest that those banned last year were generally banned for assaults, disorderly conduct and lewd behavior, not posting illicit flyers.

I think my point is that there is a moral equivalency between what Sister Souljah is calling for and what the KKK is calling for. What you are saying is that Sister Souljah's call is not likely to be accepted and so she can say whatever she wants but the KKK has in the past had a history of anti-black actions and so we can say that they will of course always be gulty of anti-black actions with no possibility of redemption. Think back to the LA riots after Rodney King and Sister Souljah's call for the blacks to riot. How is that really any different in the results of what the individual called for? I don't think anyone should get a pass because you determine at some gut level that what they are calling for will not happen. If you are wrong, will you take responsibility for the actions?

Let's see. The KKK, with more than a century of murderous racism, versus Sister Souljah

Actually, even the Southern Poverty Law Center, which sponsors KlanWatch, has chimed in that given the Klan's lack of violent activity of late, attempts to ban them from as 'terrorists,' as this professor wants to do are unlikely to succeed. And since no one is talking about banning Sister Souljah (only whether she was a good choice of speakers), these comparisons are not valid - even if the two have somewhat similar messages.

The real shame of this situtation is Souljah came to speak after a regrettable incident involving offensive t-shirts distributed by a marketing company soliciting credit card application from students. No one - black, white, other - seems to have endorsed the message of the t-shirts, yet, nine months later, racial tensions are worse and UL is shifting into high gear to curtail its commitments to free speech.

That so many PhDs can lose an intellectual thumb-wrestling match to two Klansmen and washed-up bigot of a singer is simply astounding.