Reason's Cathy Young has written a piece detailing some of the more egregious recent efforts to suppress and punish politically incorrect campus speech. Exhibits A and B are the new--patently unconstitutional--speech code at Oklahoma State, and a controversial student column in the Oregon State paper that became the occasion not for reaffirming the importance of a free press, but for shaming the paper's staff into conformity with campus norms on what constitutes acceptable expression:

In April, for instance, the faculty council of Oklahoma State University approved a "racial and sexual harassment policy" that amounts to a far-reaching speech code. According to a report in The Daily O'Collegian, the policy's definition of harassment includes "a hostile environment that unreasonably interferes with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin," even if such "interference" is "unintentional." It covers "verbal and nonverbal harassment, as well as print and electronic harassment."

The policy does purport to exempt any "presentation or inquiry falling within justifiable academic standards covering course contents and pedagogy." But justifiable is a nebulous term, and the policy as a whole is so broad and so vague that it would surely chill the legitimate exchange of ideas, particularly outside the classroom -- in student papers, for instance.

Some recent incidents involving student journalism bolster these concerns. Around the same time that Oklahoma State approved its harassment policy, a controversy erupted at Oregon State University after the student paper, The Daily Barometer, ran an article by staff columnist David Williams titled "A message from a white male to the African American community." Williams argued that one reason for the social ills disproportionately afflicting blacks is that character and accountability in the black community are undermined by a tendency to rally around prominent African-Americans behaving badly, from O.J. Simpson to singer R. Kelly, currently facing child pornography charges on the basis of a videotape allegedly showing him having sex with an underage girl.

Williams went out of his way to qualify his message, saying he realized his article could be seen as "picking on the worst" of the African-American community and that his judgment on the issue might be suspect because he is not black. "I have never been the victim of racism," he wrote. "I am a white male. This all is very easy for me to say." Williams nonetheless concluded that blacks "need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."

Maybe it was a good column making a necessary point, and maybe it was tired and condescending. But the reaction went far beyond criticism of Williams' arguments or tone. Following a protest rally, The Daily Barometer ran a groveling editorial that repeatedly apologized for printing the column and called its publication "an inexcusable mistake." Williams was fired from his position as columnist. At a campus forum held a few days later, university president Ed Gray called the incident a "teachable moment" -- the teaching in question, of course, being about diversity and institutional racism, not about freedom of the press. The Barometer's Forum editor, Christina Stewart, offered yet another apology for letting the offending article appear. (In a twist, it was subsequently revealed that Williams' column had been inspired by an article on a similar subject by the Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., who is black.)

Young's use of the word "groveling" in the Oregon State anecdote announces that this is an example of the first shaming principle: It speaks to the manner in which the OSU student journalists allowed their emotions--their very human desire not to be mocked, attacked, humiliated--to override their integrity as journalists. Christina Stewart, et al, were shamed into apologizing for publishing the unpopular opinions of a fellow student; worse, rather than defending their editorial prerogatives as well as the expressive rights of the offending columnist, they fired the columnist (when it comes to groups, ritual humiliation is never complete without a purge). The Barometer isn't likely to repeat the "mistake" of printing columns that question or challenge the political orthodoxies that prevail on the OSU campus; the staff there has learned its lesson, has caved publicly and abjectly to the pressure of public opinion, and will be actively engaged in self-censorship from here on out. So much for fearless reporting and engaged, challenging editorial pages that reflect a diversity of viewpoints.

Campus speech codes exist for the cases when individuals or groups refuse to be shamed into submission. They are institutionally ratified shaming devices that not only make it acceptable to punish students for saying things that offend others, but that use shame as the punitive weapon of choice. Sensitivity training, a common "sentence" meted out to those found guilt of violating campus speech codes, is a shaming device, a mechanism meant to make people repudiate their own consciences and accept instead an externally imposed set of rules about what kinds of beliefs and behaviors regarding race, sex, and sexuality are acceptable (Jane Elliot's Blue Eyed workshops on racial sensitivity are classics in this genre). Forced apology, another signal feature of the punishments meted out under campus speech codes, is entirely about shame, about compelling an individual who is by definition unrepentant, unwilling to apologize, to do so anyway, and to do so in a manner that is convincing to administrators and the offended parties. That such a punishment makes a mockery of the principles it is intended to uphold--sensitivity to difference, tolerance of that which is not like oneself--seems to be lost on those who so piously dole the punishments out.

Granted, harassment exists; granted threats and incitements are not free speech; and granted that even the freest of free expression should observe reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. But campus speech codes that attempt to restrict expression based on content, and that give the emotional response of others priority over a speaker's right to express himself, go way too far. They are designed to get inside people's heads and hearts, and they reserve the right not only to punish people for what they find there, but to try to reform their personalities along more "acceptable" lines.

The sick logic of the speech code, when it is used as a means of punishment, is thus that of invasion of conscience: When faced with a choice between apologizing for speaking your mind and being expelled, a student is forced to decide whether his principles matter more to him than his record, whether he is willing to risk his future for the sake of his ideals. There is indeed a great deal of shame in that. But it should be felt by the people who enforce and endorse the codes, not by those the codes attack.

Hat tip: Fred Ray

And the impact of all this may well be to produce a generation of people who are unduly submissive to authority...basically, cowards. This is clearly harmful to the operation of our democracy. It's also very harmful to economic productivity: every business needs courageous people if it is to avoid becoming a stagnant bureaucracy. And in some situations, undue submissiveness to authority is just plain dangerous. For example, there have been airline crashes that occurred because the copilot or flight engineer knew that something was wrong but didn't challenge the captain's authority.

Increasingly, I wonder if the good done by higher education, as currently constituted, is sufficient to make up for the harm that it does. Why would we want to support an institution that trains people to suppress their opinions and to become cowards?

Stalin lives. Mao lives.

Let us all stand up and publicly abase ourselves in order to survive.

Ivan

Shades of the Red Guard. What's next? Sending the offending miscreants to re-education camps? Where's the ACLU when you need it?

Where's the ACLU when you need it?

At Church?

David Foster's observation that "the impact of all this may well be to produce a generation of people who are unduly submissive to authority...basically, cowards" is a bit out of date.

The track for this was laid back in the 1960's/70's when all most of the Deans, Vice Presidents, Full Professors, et al. were learning their academic values. We're just reaping the academic baby boomer whirlwind.

My hypothesis is that the cowards are already in positions of power throughout much of academia...and the danger is that their behavior patterns will now be replicated across large numbers of people who will work *outside* academia.

And I do want to make it clear that I do know there are some *very* courageous people in academia. Unfortunately, they seem to be both outnumbered and overpowered.

Call me nuts but this conversation puts Dick Cheney's (who I do not particularly like by the way) refusal to say "I am sorry" for his go f yourself remark in a slightly different light. Same goes for Al Sharpton's refusal to bow to demands that he make amends for his Tawanna Brawley fiasco.

The Al Sharpton thing was a different kettle of fish altogether. He made specific allegations against specific people he named, at least one of whom sued for slander/libel and won. It was wrong of him to do what he did, not just possibly objectionable to some sensitive people.

Cheney may not regret what he said, but I regret it on his behalf. Who's going to hold the FCC's feet to the fire about maintaining any kind of standards of civility?

I figured out something a long time ago: Never talk about race, never never never. I've made a few exceptions and I've mostly regretted them. If I were a college student in a class where an instructor tried to get me to express something to do with race, I would bite my tongue till it bled. Make an example out of somebody else. There's nothing that black people need to hear that they can only get from me. I'm sorry about what happened to David Williams, there's no excuse for it, but he'll learn better.

Can we accept that there is a point at which "free speech" does, in fact, turn into harrassment? If, for example, you walk by the same student every day as you leave class and call her by a racially insulting name, surely that crosses some actionable line, doesn't it?

I have my problems with the Oklahoma State policy, particularly its reference to "unintentional" harassment. But I think that it's at least possible that the policy could be carried out, as written, without interfering with legitimate First Amendment rights.

The fear, of course, is that it won't be, or that it will create a chilling effect on free speech. I share those concerns. But let me ask this: is it ever legitimate for an institution to say that, while valid free speech claims will be honored, action will be taken when someone crosses the line into harassment. If so, how would such a policy be worded? If not, are we truly prepared to say that anything goes?

Finally, I worry sometimes that we are treating some truly obnoxious people as First Amendment heroes. The kids who set up the "Affirmative Action Bake Sales", for example, have to be aware that they are deliberately and publicly insulting and demeaning the African American students on campus. I fully support their constitutional right to do this, but it hardly makes them heroic.

DJ asks the question that has been bugging me for yonks. I reject the two extremes (the criminalization of hurting someone's widdle feewings on the one hand and refusing to admit that words can have big consequences on the other), but I can't find a comfortable place to sit, or even squat temporarily, in between them.

I know I'm to the left of "Nothing counts except shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," but I can't decide how left. And I'm not sure that I can go on instinct, because I'm notoriously callous (or perhaps I should say callused) and have always been able to swat away comments that might constitute real harassment for someone else (who is not a weepy Winifred or a nervous Nellie).

Hi Laura,
welcome back to the civilized portion of the blogosphere!
I understand the point about Sharpton and think what he did was despicable and yes libelous. On the other hand, in an age where everyone appologizes at the first hint of criticism I have a small piece of credit reserved for someone that says - I don't give a hoot - I ain't bowing to your whims.
As to conversations about race, I have had them,welcome them, and so far have had no regrets about them. That could all change by tomorrow - but as of now - so far so good.
Ivan

Wait till the trolls figure out Erin's comments are open again.

There are different kinds of apologies. (1) The speaker said something in error. You can say "I was mistaken" like a grownup or you can act like the fellow who you, Ivan, put down so nicely on that other blog, whose mistakes are pointed out to him and who then has to unload lots of convoluted verbiage to cloud the issue so he can still claim to be right. (2) The speaker said something in error that was harmful to another person. This is what Al Sharpton did, and I think this situation demands an apology. (3) The speaker said something that was not in error, but that hurt someone's feelings. This covers a lot of ground, but sometimes an apology might just be a nice thing to do; not "I was wrong" but "I'm sorry to cause you pain." Unless the hurtful statement was absolutely unnecessary, in which case "I was wrong" might be appropriate. (4) The speaker said something not in error, but that somebody else thought he shouldn't, as in the case Erin outlines here. No apology, unless you're telling the cop you're sorry you asked if the donut shop was closed and you don't want to be dragged off to jail. (5) The speaker said something that was inappropriate and offensive to reasonable people, and that is out of character for him, as Lynne Cheney says "go f- yourself" is for Mr. Cheney. In that case an apology is a mature thing to do, and important if you want to look like you have a scrap of integrity. Otherwise you might as well just go on and be Howard Stern. IMO.

How many words was that? : )

Tacitus's new blog, Red State, has rules for posting that could well be adopted by any college, at least for classroom discussions, without violating the First Amendment, to wit:

No profanity.
No personal attacks.
No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

Of course, the impartial application of these rules would prohibit class members from calling a classmate a "Nazi" for expressing in a reasoned way opposition to affirmative action or calling another student a "bigot" for expressing the belief that homosexuality is immoral. I think most members of the academy are far more comfortable suppressing the unpopular viewpoint than suppressing the nasty ad hominem attack on the person expressing the unpopular point of view.

Just a question for Erin. When you mentioned OSU in your comments, were you talking about the Oklahoma State case or the Oregon State case. Both universities are designated as OSU as is Ohio State University. Your reference is not clear and as the two cases are very different, your point is therefore not clear.

That said, if people can call me a "honky" and "white bread" and speak to me about "dead white men" in their discussions about why Academia has to change, then why on earth cannot a student who clearly states that his views are not those of a black man but are his interpretation as a non-black man as to how he sees black problems. He also notes that he is not doing this for any racist reason but just bringing up questions for discussion. This I find very disheartening. It also brings up for me the question as to just who defines what diversity has to be. Most institutions have diversity committees these days and they all seem to be able to recognize anything that is racist/anti-black but they are totally unable to recognize anything that is racist/anti-white. Do they really believe that the only racists are white? I really would like to have an answer to this because it really bothers me. I was in Dallas a few years ago when BET was just getting started and they had a comedian on who really got off on talking about "Oreos" and "Uncle Toms" and "honkies" and why black men would ever want to have white girlfriends. He called black men with white girlfriends traitors and men who really could not cut it as men. It struck me that if a white man had said anything even remotely like that about a black person, he would be crucified in the media and forced to undergo "diversity training" (is that the same thing as re-education camps?).

In this instance, "OSU" means "Oregon State."

Thanks.

Laura - - - your word count was just fine IMHO since you were saying someting of value and all your words counted. :) Your distinctions are more than valid and your point re the difference between Sharpton & Cheney are well taken. By the way - Lynn Cheney did an admirable job discussing the matter with Wolf Blitzer over the weekend. She is a force to be reckoned with. I think she would have made a better VP. :-) Ivan

A side issue -- the Oregon State columnist was correctly fired. His column paraphrased and partially plagiarized, from Pitts' column. Link is here:

http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/19/40844ead25fcb?in_archive=1

But of course the kid was fired for the content ... I was also shocked, in other articles, of the harshness of the opprobrium directed at him by the paper's copy editor. She called him "ignorant" and worse.

What worries me is Williams' own declaration that he couldn't see things from any perspective other than a "white male's". His clinical description of himself reminds me of how far the concept of manhood has become debased among the young. Williams should've said what he meant and stuck by it. Instead, he partially plagiarized a column, mixed in some of his own feckless PC-ness handwringing, and ended up hoisted on both petards, so to speak.

Discussing problems in the black community requires a delicate touch in today's political environment -- and that touch takes time to develop. College would be a good time to do that, but the Internet has raised the stakes, too. What surprises me is there seemed to be no adults around.

I wonder just why it is that discussing problems in the black community should require a delicate touch these days. Seems to me that the whole point of MLK was that there should be NO differences caused by race. In other words, if there is a problem in the black community and a white man can reasonably point out some potential areas for discussion, then he should not be treated as a racist. Conversely if there are problems in the white or Asian community and a black man can reasonably point out some potential areas for discussion, then he should also not be treated as a racist. Think of Mandela and Desmond Tutu lecturing the world. Think of the good columns Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have written over the years.

I think that the time for pussyfooting around is long over, with the caveat that reasonableness needs to be part of the equation. The academic community needs to realize that racists can be of any color and that the term should be used only when the comments made are made strictly to denigrate the individual members of the race in question. That is not what is happening now. If you are black you can say almost anything and get away with it. If you are non-black then you have to tiptoe around the issue completely. The whole racist sub-community is a slap in the face of those who fought for civil rights so that the world would be color-blind.