Two comments deep in the thread on Syracuse University's suppression of the student-run television station deserve foregrounding.

The first is from Noah Leavitt, a Syracuse student who was also a member of HillTv:

I am a HillTV member...a sports producer in fact. If there are any specific questions I can clarify, feel free to ask. I will say that the bigger issue, is Nancy Cantor's violation of HillTV's due process rights, according to the SU Studen Code of Conduct. Again, any questions, throw them my way.

While I'm against speech codes and stupid grandstanding, I'm not quite sure how this is a black and white free speech issue. I think we can all agree that the first amendment has "good" uses and "bad" uses. Making the claim that laissez-faire treatment of free speech will ultimately allow "good" ideas to float to the top is disingenuous. I know I don't have a solution, but there's definitely a problem.

First, allow me to define "good" and "bad" because these terms are relative for anyone not living inside an Ayn Rand novel. In this scenario: by good I mean promoting human cooperation, understanding, progress and learning sound decision making. By bad I mean promoting misunderstanding, hate, narrow-mindedness, and accepting whatever happens to be said by peers. Obviously good and bad mean a whole lot more, but this is where I'm coming from. Now, unless you are an economist or behaviorist that still desperately clings to the rational model of human motivation and decision making, you will admit that people choose the bad way all the time, regardless of influence from those who "know better." I don't claim to be innocent. I laugh at jokes that parody racial, cultural, and gender differences, exploit these differences and the misunderstanding or naive thinking that goes along with them...I'm human after all and I laugh before I consider further implications.

I don't laugh all the time, though.

People, regardless of age, are most influenced by their peers, by those around them, when it comes to everyday motivation and action. If a group of students is using a University sanctioned television network to propagate misunderstanding, myth, and stereotyping (whether the intentions are bad or not), and to make a joke out of it all on top of that, at the expense of other students on campus and at the expense of the university, and in a larger sense, society trying to combat these attitudes (also, at the financial expense of the University), tell me what then does the university do? If they simply try to propagate opposing ideas, trust me, they won't win, even if those ideas are good rational arguments. The students (and plenty of adults) just go with what is funny or what others seem to do, without any further thought into the consequences of that behavior. If the University sanctions the tv network, do they, by implication, sanction what is done on the network? Again, one can rationally think no, they're just allowing free speech, but does everyone think that way? Do the majority of people reason that? In regards to the H.O.M.E. group and the professor's response: His response was good when it was underming the very pillars the group stands on, but then disintegrated into a mess. I don't know the details about H.O.M.E., but for the sake of the argument, if they are like many intolerant groups, they don't attempt to win people over through rational, information-rich pamphlets. These type of groups (again, I'm characterizing for the sake of the argument) are often insidious proselytisers looking for converts, and students can be easy targets.

I don't see anyone on this comment thread actually throwing out any answers about how to deal with free speech that undermines learning. Instead, these comments reflect the fact that you know better and seem to believe that others know better as well. It's easier to trust that students will here all the arguments for different points of view and choose the "best" one. However, people believe all sorts of non-sense that is simply told to them, and they believe it in spite of other, more tenable ways of thinking.

Is this acceptable in the name of absolute free speech? Can no lines be drawn? Is a television show making fun of other people for the different way they live simply a matter of fun and free speech? How about when you're the target? Do we stick to our nationalist guns in a world in which it is increasingly more likely to be in contact with people 1000s of miles away? Or do we attempt to spread the idea that we're all people regardless of arbitrary flags and geo-political demarcations?

I think we can all agree that the first amendment has "good" uses and "bad" uses.

I think we can all agree that the First Amendment protects both.

I appreciate the recognition, honestly. I wasn't sure if posting in that thread was going to do anything. Unfortunately what I orginally wrote was written in a little more composed form, then was lost, so I had to reconstruct it from memory, late at night. I just want to reiterate that I'm really looking for interesting answers to what I believe are debatable questions. I don't really have any clear cut answers currently.

Tim, if it wasn't clear, I understand that. My question has to do with winning the minds of students with good ideas when it is so easy and typical for people to propagate hateful ideas and the like under the guise of humor and free speech? To what extent does an organization such as the university allow people associated with it's name be as outrageously irresponsible with that relationship as they want? When do we say no, you're not using this forum, this power we have allowed you, ethically? Is it not the case that something such as Iran's president publically calling for Israel to wiped from the face the earth is a tool to inflame people to do horrible things?

Censorship is indeed a slippery slope. But at what point do we follow ethics and at what point do we hold absolutes in regards to obviously flammable principles? I believe the only recourse, in the end, is time...it's going to take time to steer our culture away from bad ideas and damaging beliefs...and forcing the clock via logically unstable and arbitrary rules (e.g., such as the post hoc measureing rules added to Title IX) doesn't hurts progress as much as it tries to help.

I hope this makes my stance a little more clear.

However, people believe all sorts of non-sense that is simply told to them, and they believe it in spite of other, more tenable ways of thinking.

That's the nature of the beast. People are free to believe nonsense if they so wish. It's not the mission of a university to declare which ideas are nonsense and which aren't. Nor is it the mission of a university to foster some sense of "societal justice" among its students. The university simply exists to foster an atmosphere conducive to the free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge. Risk is inherent in all of our rights. It should be clear, however, that the benefits outweigh the risk.

I don't see anyone on this comment thread actually throwing out any answers about how to deal with free speech that undermines learning.

How exactly does this TV show (or any TV show for that matter) undermine learning? This is another nebulous definition along the lines of the Orwellian "hate speech" codes that universities rampantly abuse to suppress speech with which they disagree.

I think if we can- and, indeed, must - put up with the offensive speech of professors, we can put up with the offensive speech of students and student groups.

"... These type of groups (again, I'm characterizing for the sake of the argument) are often insidious proselytisers looking for converts, and students can be easy targets."

Of course, this has been said of professors, as well.

Well I'm interested that ethical concerns are now conflated into the "Orwellian speech code" mantra, ya know to make sure things are simple and black and white. Everyone is after you and your rights by the way...everyone. Be paranoid.

The concern about proseltysing professors is noted. I don't disagree. But even the guys at South Park understand that there's an ethical consideration involved with their "art". While I don't know what, if any, similar action was taken by these students, television is inherently more powerful of a medium than standing on the corner spewing whatever thoughts come to your mind. And not everyone is adept at making humorous, offensive commentary while conveying the absurdity of those beliefs.

Again, I pose the question: what are the ethics involved? Are we not to consider this at all? Should we give anyone, regardless of intent, the pulpit? I do believe dishonestly screaming fire in a crowded movie theater is not protected under free speech laws. Why? Supposition of intent. I don't recall the right to TV time or prohibition of regulating the airwaves being an amendment to the constitution.

One interesting nugget I wanted to throw in with regards to free speech. One professor at Newhouse brought in the idea of imminent threat/danger from certain speech. If Cantor was using imminent threat as a basis to her decision that might change things, but one can probably make the argument that the show was not a decisive nor realistic call to any action. Just wanted thoughts on this idea of an imminent threat, etc...Thanks.

Let's try this from a different angle. I establish a private university, that accepts some federal funding. Given that:

1) The 1st Amendment does not apply, nor should it apply to an institution that lacks the coercive power of the government.

2) The strings attached to the federal funding do not, as I understand it, require anything close to a 1st Amendment standard of free speech.

3) I think you can make a case that students will require a basic sense of civility in their adult lives more than they'll benefit from exposure to all varieties of idiot, left and right.

So, where is the crime in holding students to a standard of speech higher than that enforceable by the government? Provided, of course, that that standard is made clear in all contractual dealing with the students. The public sphere (including public universities) can provide adequate exposure to any idiot with a point to make.

Noah, thank you for phrasing it such. I was wrestling with how to draw that line.

Free speech is free, or it is not. We can't say "some speech is free and some is not". One is free to say "I'm going to use a knife to kill John Doe tomorrow afternoon at two." but must accept that the message of that speech would then cause other actions, including possible arrest for communicating a threat. Still, the speaker has the right to make the statement.

Similary, gangsta rappers have the right to spew their (to me) hateful and disrespectful words. I don't have to listen. They accept some will censor them.

And speech, no matter how hateful or offensive, is protected. It's the threat/danger that is not protected.

After following the link to the blog and doing some reading there, I think your "ethical concerns" might not necessarily jibe with those of many students, and some of your observations (the suggestions that Bush stole the election & that the Christian Right, of which I am not a part, is the new and nastily oppressive 15th-17th century Catholic Church) might amount to the sort of mean-spririted, non-productive, narrowminded, stereotyping, and rotely repeated "bad speech" you are worried about. It's the sort of speech that many professors engage in in class every day and that "intimidates" and cows a great many university students -- who are required to have the thick skins and viewpoint tolerance that the speech police never seem to have.

"Let's try this from a different angle. I establish a private university, that accepts some federal funding. Given that:

"1) The 1st Amendment does not apply, nor should it apply to an institution that lacks the coercive power of the government...."

Should Equal Protection and the 14th Amendment also not apply, or does the fact that it's a private university give cover against those constitutional inconveniences, too?

After following the link to the blog...

I'm talking about the blog link provided by sps.

My question is more elemental: exactly what was the content of the shows in question? The available public descriptions is painfully vague. Syracuse isn't required to support any possible group of students with a television program, any more than NBC is obligated to air a videotape I concocted in my garage, or any university obligated to pay a big honorarium to Ward Churchill simply because someone on campus wants to invite him.

Now every institution has its own internal versions of due process, and the wisest thing with any kind of student-run media is to construct a strong firewall between it and the administration and faculty, otherwise you'll have students being second-guessed on every trivial thing and forced to conform to lowest-common denominator ideals of inoffensiveness. As an absolute free expression issue, I never care really what the content of speech is: whatever it is, someone's entitled to say it. But when it comes to a private institution choosing what kinds of speech it wants to directly subsidize, I think content does matter in judging whether they've made judicious decisions or not.

And in this case, I can't really say much about the content.

I love how "liberals" resort to the private school cover when it's their ox getting gored.

Should Equal Protection and the 14th Amendment also not apply, or does the fact that it's a private university give cover against those constitutional inconveniences, too?

The due process aspect of the 14th Amendment (presumably you're referring to that, not Confederate war debt) is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The government has extraordinary power and therefore has extraordinary restrictions upon it. I see no reason why those restrictions should be incumbent upon private institutions. I wouldn't choose to attend a school that would quarter troops in my dorm room, but nonetheless the 3rd Amendment should not be applicable.

I love how "liberals" resort to the private school cover when it's their ox getting gored.

A) I'm not a liberal, let alone a "liberal", and B) it's not obvious to me why nationalizing private institutions is a "conservative" position.

Well I'm interested that ethical concerns are now conflated into the "Orwellian speech code" mantra, ya know to make sure things are simple and black and white.

Fine, you don't think universities routinely abuse their "hate speech" codes and free speech zones to suppress dissent? Go to FIRE's website and look through the various cases. "Double-plus-ungood" anyone?

Let's turn the tables then. Many Christian groups consider abortion to be unethical. What if a university decided to quash pro-choice rallies, discussions, etc because the administration feels they are unethical? What then? Furthermore, I consider Ward Churchill to be a vile scumbag. How about other colleges ban him from speaking at their universities because he's "unethical?" What about those who consider affirmative action unethical?

Should we give anyone, regardless of intent, the pulpit?

Obviously not, but Universities have shown time and again that any additional speech limitations they create (in addition to the legal limitations) are ripe for abuse. Student newspapers, governments, TV shows, etc are supposed to be well insulated from the university administration, even though the university is footing the bill.

"My question has to do with winning the minds of students with good ideas when it is so easy and typical for people to propagate hateful ideas and the like under the guise of humor and free speech?"

Gee, "winning the minds" sounds a bit like proseletyzing to me. Who gets to say what's a good idea or a hateful idea? I'm not saying that there are not ideas that reasonable people can agree are good or hateful - of course there are. But look at that whole H.O.M.E. thing, where the very guy screaming about hate just oozes it from every word. You yourself, sps, don't hold back from characterizing H.O.M.E. as intolerant even though you admit you don't know anything about them. I think that the idea of being squeamish about regulating speech comes from the desire not to be one-sided about what's considered acceptable.

I also think that people go off to college to finish growing up. Some stuff college students come up with is probably the last burst of adolescence before they have to become stodgy adults. Perhaps it shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm talking about what the kids come up with here, not the excesses of some of the professors Erin has posted about who presumably are grown up and ought to know better.

JSinger: Sorry for jumping to any conclusions re you.

I would stick by my point, though, that many "liberals," in defending things like speech codes (usually selectively enforced), find convenient protection for their viewpoint discrimination where the school with the speech code is private; i.e., instead of justify the speech rules or having speech rules that make sense and are fairly applied, they simply say, "it's a private school, it can stifle speech it doesn't agree with." While they may be legally correct, they deserve the scare quotes around the term "liberals."

"SPS" raises a wonderfully provocative question because it makes us think beyond the slogans and facile answers that so often dominate this debate. Three come to mind immediately:

a. "We must protect all speech because the First Amendment says so!" That's not an argument; it's a dodge. It's more or less the equivalent of saying "because I said so".

b. "Speech codes lead us down the slippery slope to tyranny!" No, they don't. Canada has much more restrictive speech laws than the United States. Canada remains a free country.

c. "If we all have free speech, the best speech will win in the marketplace of ideas!" But as "SPS" points out, angry, nasty, obnoxious speech regularly wins in the real marketplace. Howard Stern regularly draws higher audiences than NPR.

The reason we make these arguments is that we don't want to admit that most of the authors of speech codes are, in many ways, the good guys. They are motivated by a desire to make the college experience less stressful and more rewarding for their students. They know that words hurt because they have sat in their offices with real, live crying students. They have seen the righteous anger in the faces of African American students when some jerk with a byline decides it's time to dredge up old ethnic stereotypes in the name of thinly veiled racist "humor". They--most of them, anyway--are not thinking about how to score PC points against the Massive Right-Wing Conspiracy. They're thinking about vulnerable young adults.

So if we're going to deal with these issues, we have to holster our slogans and deal with the fundamental question: Why, in the end, do we support a Free Speech standard that we know will harm real people (and anyone who thinks that words don't cause real harm has obviously forgotten their secondary school days).

I don't have a great answer here. But I think it comes down to the rights of the vulnerable themselves, the people who have nobody to speak for them. The ethnic and racial minorities. The radicals. The small voice attempting to speak truth to power at a time when power is more powerful than ever. Without a government who will look out for their rights (we are not Canada, after all, and even Canada is nowhere close to perfect in that respect), we must hold the line on protecting unpopular, angry, perhaps even hateful speech. History teaches us that every restriction ever concocted either immediately or eventually falls most heavily on the most marginalized.

It is a bitter irony, therefore, that we must protect the rights of the snotty, over-privileged jackasses who set up "affirmative action bake sales" in order to ensure to the greatest degree that the underprivileged always have a voice. It's not that the slippery slope to tyranny is inevitable or even likely--it's enough that it is possible.

For obvious reasons, I find X's comments to be absolutely frightening and a depressing reflection of the left's desire to privilege left-speak.

"For obvious reasons, I find X's comments to be absolutely frightening and a depressing reflection of the left's desire to privilege left-speak."

Sadly, yet another slogan rather than a response.

If BWells will read my post again--carefully, this time--s/he will discover that I came down on the side of free speech. Notwithstanding that, I assume I am permitted to decalre my preferences as to which speech is better or worse, hurtful or not hurtful. That my post would be considered either frightening or depressing says quite a bit about what one really thinks about free speech.

It's not the mission of a university to declare which ideas are nonsense and which aren't.

WHAT? The university has no interest in ideas or truth? What exactly then *is* the interest of the university?

(Don't answer "education" - it isn't education if the stuff that is taught isn't true. And don't answer "research" either, if you don't think the ends are to separate the sense from the nonsense.)

"The reason we make these arguments is that we don't want to admit that most of the authors of speech codes are, in many ways, the good guys. They are motivated by a desire to make the college experience less stressful and more rewarding for their students.

"....

"I don't have a great answer here. But I think it comes down to the rights of the vulnerable themselves, the people who have nobody to speak for them. The ethnic and racial minorities. The radicals. The small voice attempting to speak truth to power at a time when power is more powerful than ever.

"....

"That my post would be considered either frightening or depressing says quite a bit about what one really thinks about free speech."

Oh, please.

"Notwithstanding that, I assume I am permitted to decalre my preferences as to which speech is better or worse, hurtful or not hurtful."

X, have you seen anything here that would lead you to believe that you might not be permitted to declare your preferences? You're the one who wants a speech code. Erin wishes we would be civil to each other and stay more or less on topic, but that's about it.

And what is "speak truth to power" if not a very tired and extremely, irritatingly overrused slogan?

"X, have you seen anything here that would lead you to believe that you might not be permitted to declare your preferences? You're the one who wants a speech code."

No, no, no, no, no. I did NOT say I wanted a speech code. I said I was in sympathy with the motives of those who design speech codes. They are not an army of wild-eyed leftists who are trying to stamp out every last vestige of conservatism on campus. Rather, they are people who are sincerely devoted to students and their well-being. They know that racism (and sexism and homophobia) are a cancer on our society and that they create a hostile learning environment on campus, making it more difficult for many students to succeed.

For the reasons stated in my post, I regard the authors of speech codes as well-intentioned, but in the end, wrong. I do not favor speech codes. I understand and sympathize with the motivations behind them. But I don't support them.

Still, it's overly simplistic and naive to say that free speech is inherently good. If I could find a way to outlaw racism that would not put the rights of anyone else in jeopardy, I would do it in a second. But I can't. So I defend the rights of bigots the same way I support the rights of vicious criminals whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, even as I recognize that the cops who have violated their rights are generally the good guys.

Civil libertarianism is a dirty business and it often requires us to side with the most odious elements in our society. I am willing to do that, but I do think it's important to remind ourselves that the "victims" of speech codes are very often morally inferior to the people who want the codes enforced.

I did find some of your comments a bit troubling, X, but I understand your position. Free Speech, like Democracy, is the worst option, except for all the others.

That said, measures adopted by college administrators for the purpose of protecting the feelings of their students don't really strike me as the sort of thing that should pass even a cursory review. Having someone cry in your office is no doubt unsettling and one would wish to do something, but willingness to let emotional appeals override even the barest minimum of reasoning is troublesome. While calumnies and grieving mothers will always move us, on a broader scale the goal of "intellectualism" is to move beyond the rawest of emotions (even if our intellectual search leads us back to them). Assuming that all speech codes are wrought with the best intentions, it doesn't speak well of the administrators of colleges to see that they have ceded this very first foot of ground.

They are motivated by a desire to make the college experience less stressful and more rewarding for their students. They know that words hurt because they have sat in their offices with real, live crying students. They have seen the righteous anger in the faces of African American students when some jerk with a byline decides it's time to dredge up old ethnic stereotypes in the name of thinly veiled racist "humor". They--most of them, anyway--are not thinking about how to score PC points against the Massive Right-Wing Conspiracy. They're thinking about vulnerable young adults.

Well, part of being an adult is being able to accept speech that you don't agree with. A reasonable person is expected to be able to stomach a certain degree of insult, not to run off and get big brother to shut them up. Once you get off the college campus, nobody is going to be there to censor those big meanies who say things you don't like. And you obviously didn't read the link that I suggested you read, because you would have seen the rampant abuse of speech codes at our public universities that is actually occurring, not some nebulous slippery slope. And the victims are not the caricature of "morally inferior" cretins that you paint them as.

So if we're going to deal with these issues, we have to holster our slogans and deal with the fundamental question: Why, in the end, do we support a Free Speech standard that we know will harm real people (and anyone who thinks that words don't cause real harm has obviously forgotten their secondary school days).

I don't enjoy being insulted, nor does anyone else, but that's not a good reason for censorship. Why don't you give us an example of this greivous harm? Note that harassment, incitement to violence, and induction of panic do cause significant harm, but they are already regulated.

I don't have a great answer here. But I think it comes down to the rights of the vulnerable themselves, the people who have nobody to speak for them. The ethnic and racial minorities. The radicals.

They are not children. They should be expected to respond to speech that they disagree with or even verbal abuse in the same manner as everyone else.

WHAT? The university has no interest in ideas or truth? What exactly then *is* the interest of the university?

I don't know whether you can't read or you just choose not to, but let me spell this out for you. The incident we are discussing did not take place in the classroom. The interest of the university outside of the classroom is to promote an open dialogue and free exchange of ideas, not to sanction "good" ideas and censor "bad" ideas. Now, if some biology professor starts to teach creationism, that's a wholly different story. So despite your telling me what I can and can't answer, yes the mission inside the classroom is education.

Tim, I flew off the handle a bit there. Please accept my apologies.

The conversation drifts. Nevertheless:

The interest of the university outside of the classroom is to promote an open dialogue and free exchange of ideas, not to sanction "good" ideas and censor "bad" ideas.

I disagree. The interest of the university is to figure out which ideas are true, and which are not. And to the extent that "open dialogue and free exchange of ideas" is part of the process of getting to true ideas, it's one of the means -- but it is not the end.

I flew off the handle a bit there

No sweat.

I agree with Jordan's 2:58 comment, and I'll also add this:

You care about students' hurt feelings? What about the feelings of the students who were censored because their beliefs were deemed unpleasant? In what world is not also hurtful (and genuinely oppressive) to be told that your beliefs are bad and wrong and that you'd better shut up or be punished?

X, look at the post above this one. The same people who decided Klocek needed to shut up thought Churchill was just fine. If these people are writing a speech code, that is going to be a rotten speech code.

OK, I'm still being asked to defend speech codes, even though I've twice explicitly stated that I oppose them. But on behalf of friends who disagree with me and will never see this website, let me try:

College is not the "real world", nor should it be expected to mimic real world conditions. It is a place to discover new ideas and information, to experiment with new ways of thinking, and to grow personally and intellectually. Central to the mission of any college and university, therefore, is the notion of civility. Students should be allowed to engage in this process of dialogue and discovery in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, free from the bullies and bigots that surely inhabit the real world. These people are the enemies of learning and understanding, and even if we must tolerate them in the outside world, we have no obligation to do so on campus, where their presence is directly contrary to our mission.

And while I ultimately come down against that argument, it is simply not an unreasonable one. Indeed, in the real world, there are many social and economic sanctions for the sort of behavior which is engaged in without penalty on campus. Try to be a smart-ass at work. Try to tell racist jokes in the board room (sure, you might get away with it, but you might also get fired). Try filling your department newsletter with personal attacks on your company's affirmative action officer.

Are speech codes abused? Of course they are. Every rule, every law is abused. And our ability to cite the (relatively) few cases of abuse that occur each year hardly makes the practice, to use the words of one poster above, "rampant".

Stephanie asks, "In what world is not also hurtful (and genuinely oppressive) to be told that your beliefs are bad and wrong and that you'd better shut up or be punished?" Well, I guess it depends on what those beliefs are. I've already stated that I don't, on balance, believe in shutting people up and punishing them, but I'm perfectly happy to shout from the rooftops without apology that some beliefs--most forms of bigotry, for example--are bad and wrong.

As for Klocek and Churchill, I don't know. I doubt that "the same people who decided Klocek needed to shut up thought Churchill was just fine" because I doubt that the same people had a major hand in both the decision to suspend Klocek and the decision to invite Churchill. I could be wrong, I suppose, but that's generally not the way universities work. (Parenthetically, I'll add that I've seen Ward Chuchill enough times on television to wonder why anyone would think he'd have anything of value to say, much less to pay for.) As for Klocek, I suppose the facts will come out, as they should, and we'll see what happened. No professor should be suspended or fired for making students feel uncomfortable; that's a large part of the job description, after all. But professors do have a responsibility to treat their students with respect and not to personally intimidate or humiliate them, which is a responsibility that is separate from any speech content or any political viewpoint. Any professor who violates that rule (and I have no idea whether or not Klocek did) should be called to account.

If it's truly different sets of people dealing with Klocek and with Churchill, then there's no oversight and no coordination at that school.

I agree that people ought to be nice. When I was in college, our newspaper's opinion writers' views were so far to the left it was painful to read. I didn't read it. It didn't occur to me to suggest that we not have a newspaper or fire the staff. This is about a student-run television station. The students are required to watch it?

I agree that professors have a responsibility to be respectful ... in the classroom. I don't think that people who set up a booth promoting one side of a controversial topic have a reasonable expectation that nobody is going to disagree with them.

"The reason we make these arguments is that we don't want to admit that most of the authors of speech codes are, in many ways, the good guys. They are motivated by a desire to make the college experience less stressful and more rewarding for their students."

No. If we engage in the sort of "deap reading" that the college thing is supposed to encourage, we see the real purpose of a speech code: to allow its authors and enforcers to maintain the dominance of their own viewpoint. If they could get away with a monopoly, they would. They aren't by any stretch of the imagination "the good guys." They are, however, "the man" (dressed up in the clothes of concerned liberal caretakers).

CVA,

I don't know if you have any friends or acquaintances who are college administrators, but I'm guessing the answer is either "no" or "not many". The idea that these people represent some sort of grand conspiracy of leftist foot soldiers is just ridiculous. Mostly, college administrators are professional problems solvers, trying to reconcile diverse interests, constituencies, and personalities. They're much too busy putting out today's fire and trying to ward off tomorrow's to expend much effort on living up to David Horowitz's paranoid fantasies.

Are there some administrators who are total idiots? Sure, although you could replace the word "administrators" in that sentence with any other job classification and the answer would be the same. But just as the well publicized indictments in Washington don't prove that every politicians and political operative is a crook, the outing of the occasional out of control administrator doesn't change the fact that such people are, thankfully, rare.

When administrators overstep their legitimate authority on issues like "hate speech" and other "PC" matters, most of them do it in the spirit of solving the problem that is immediately before them. They see a bully and they see a victim and their instinct is to side with the victim. In my mind, that still makes them good guys, even when they're decisions may need to be reversed.

Oops, last sentence should of course read "their decisions".

College is not the "real world", nor should it be expected to mimic real world conditions. It is a place to discover new ideas and information, to experiment with new ways of thinking, and to grow personally and intellectually. Central to the mission of any college and university, therefore, is the notion of civility. Students should be allowed to engage in this process of dialogue and discovery in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, free from the bullies and bigots that surely inhabit the real world. These people are the enemies of learning and understanding, and even if we must tolerate them in the outside world, we have no obligation to do so on campus, where their presence is directly contrary to our mission.

That sounds exactly like a press release a university might issue to defend it's baseless persecution of some student or another. Usually, bigot is broadly defined, so if you speak out against affirmative action for example, your villified and denounced as a bigot.

You proved that point mighty nicely earlier when you stated: "It is a bitter irony, therefore, that we must protect the rights of the snotty, over-privileged jackasses who set up "affirmative action bake sales." Well, I consider these jackasses to be conducting a valid protest of an overtly racist policy. How's that for bigotry?

Indeed, in the real world, there are many social and economic sanctions for the sort of behavior which is engaged in without penalty on campus. Try to be a smart-ass at work. Try to tell racist jokes in the board room (sure, you might get away with it, but you might also get fired). Try filling your department newsletter with personal attacks on your company's affirmative action officer.

In the real world some neo-nazis might march down your street. If you've been coddled and shielded from dissenting viewpoints your entire life, how do you respond? With violence, the only means at your disposal to shut them up in the real world. Note that this in no way condones the vile garbage spewed by the nazis.

"Canada has much more restrictive speech laws than the United States. Canada remains a free country."

Canada is a kleptocracy run for the benefit of the leadership of the Liberal Party. This was hardly always the case even under previous Liberal governments, but the current one is currently in power despite losing several votes of confidence in Parliament. If Canada is still, despite that, a "free country," then so was England under Charles I. Moreover, the much-vaunted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not worth the paper it's printed on: the Canadian Supreme Court makes the Ninth Circuit look like practically the Second Coming of John Marshall.

"The idea that these people represent some sort of grand conspiracy of leftist foot soldiers is just ridiculous."

One doesn't NEED a conspiracy: a lockstep shared worldview that regards disagreement with it as not merely mistaken but illegitimate if not outright evil is all that's required, and all that anyone is suggesting.

"Usually, bigot is broadly defined, so if you speak out against affirmative action for example, your villified and denounced as a bigot."

My goodness, where do/did you go to school? At every college I've ever studied/worked at, people speak out against affirmative action all the time. All the time. In classrooms, in conversations, in the student newspaper--everywhere. To my knowledge, not one of them has faced any sanction for that viewpoint, which is as it should be. I am not aware of any speech code, even the most blatantly unconstitutional, that would punish someone merely for "speak[ing] out against affirmative action".

For people who favor speech codes (which--remember folks--I don't), the problem comes when people express their opposition to affirmative action in ways that are intended to demean and humiliate others. Thus, the "affirmative action bake sale". Speaking of which...

"You proved that point mighty nicely earlier when you stated: "It is a bitter irony, therefore, that we must protect the rights of the snotty, over-privileged jackasses who set up "affirmative action bake sales." Well, I consider these jackasses to be conducting a valid protest of an overtly racist policy. How's that for bigotry?"

I guess you're suggesting that I'm a hypocrite because I harbor my own prejudice against "snotty, over-privileged jackasses". Guilty as charged. Fact is, I can't stand snotty over-privileged jackasses. I'm not very fond of the under-privileged variety, either. Yes, they are protesting a policy with which they disagree (whether or not it's a racist policy would require a long side discussion on the meaning of both affirmative action and racism, which I simply don't have the energy for right now). But anyway, the point is not that they are protesting a policy, but that they are doing so in an intentionally insulting way, and are unconcerned about the fact that they are offending a number of students who, I hope we can all agree, are innocent parties to the dispute.

By the way, notwithstanding the fact that I consider these "protesters" to be snotty, over-privileged jackasses", I would never so refer to them in an official capacity. My reluctance would, however, have nothing to do with speech codes or political correctness or any of the other bugaboos of the day. Rather, I would restrain myself in the interest of civility, which is, whether you like it or not, truly a pre-requisite to productive academic dialogue.

X:
My wife is a college English prof, who went to Brown (PC U), by the way. While she was at Brown, I met some of her profs, one of whom spent (and still spends) much of his energy keeping CIA and military recruiters and speakers off of the campus. I guess he's just "speaking truth to power." Although he was always perfectly friendly to me, I don't consider him "one of the good guys."

But anyway, the point is not that they are protesting a policy, but that they are doing so in an intentionally insulting way, and are unconcerned about the fact that they are offending a number of students who, I hope we can all agree, are innocent parties to the dispute.

Hmmm, let's see, minority customers are charged less than white students to buy baked goods (i.e. they are preferred customers) = insulting. But, minority students are awarded bonus points during the admission process based on their race (i.e. they are preferred applicants) = not insulting? I'm not seeing the difference here. Both are insulting to me (thus we see the point of the bake sale). If the bake sale offends you then why doesn't the admission policy?

An abstract dedication to "Civility" is a potentially slippery thing to bring up when it comes down to it. The majority of a community collectively decides what is and isn't civil discourse, and the communally accepted civility of any given expression is mutable. When someone breaks down crying in front of you, it's quite likely for any person pliable to emotional appeals that they will automatically conclude, whether or not they were personally offended, that the expression was uncivil based upon the extreme response of a few select individuals.

I think it's a little extreme to call things like Affirmative Action bake sales demeaning. They aren't meant to be, and I can't personally see how they could be. I can see how Affirmative Action itself is demeaning, but... Regardless of whether that sort of action is demeaning or not, though, the clear and obvious political intent of their expression should make it obvious that it should be given extraordinary protection. What we're seeing is that it is most definitely not.

Both are insulting to me (thus we see the point of the bake sale). If the bake sale offends you then why doesn't the admission policy?

I think I should explain this remark. The concept of a business (or university) preferring certain races over others is what I find insulting. However, the bake sales held on campus to protest and highlight the absurdity of affirmative action policies are not offensive to me.

But anyway, the point is not that they are protesting a policy, but that they are doing so in an intentionally insulting way, and are unconcerned about the fact that they are offending a number of students who, I hope we can all agree, are innocent parties to the dispute.

If a reductio ad absurdum involving cookies and brownies isn't acceptable, what is? If someone is offended by the notion that some groups should not be given special treatment, how much less offended are they going to be if that notion is expressed through protests or opinion pieces in the student newspaper? If someone is offended by the notion that some groups get special consideration... well, I'm not seeing why someone who's against affirmative action would find the sales insulting in the first place.

well, I'm not seeing why someone who's against affirmative action would find the sales insulting in the first place.

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I worded part of my previous post rather poorly. Let me just plainly state that I am opposed to affirmative action and I don't find the bake sales insulting.

Well, we're winding our way toward a debate over affirmative action, which is not only tangential to the subject at hand, but also condemned to degenerate into what we geezers refer to as a "tastes great-less filling" argument (after a beer advertising campaign of the late 1970s). That is, you'll spout your talking points, I'll spout mine, and after all that spouting nothing will be accomplished beyond the rehearsal of numerous well-rehearsed, but hackneyed, bon mots (or is that bons mot?).

Anyhow, I think intent matters here. Affirmative action is not intended to demean anyone, nor do most of its beneficiaries, to my knowledge, feel demeaned. The point of these bake sales, on the other hand, is to ridicule. You may argue that they are intended to ridicule college administrators rather than minority students, but that distinction seems to be lost on a lot of minority students. Indeed, once these students have expressed their offense, the proprietors of said bake sales have a choice: either shut them down, or acknowledge that they--the proprietors--couldn't care less that their (innocent) fellow students are feeling insulted and demeaned. Nice people would choose the former option.

As to whether affirmative action itself is demeaning, I'm not sure that's for you or me to decide. If the recipients don't feel demeaned, then it's not demeaning. If it were for me to decide, however, I would suggest that it's no more demeaning than Head Start programs in pre-school or even the fact that distance racers on the outside track are allowed to start the race further ahead than those on the inside.

That's not to say, of course, that every minority student has lived a more disadvantaged life than every Caucasian student. I'm sympathetic to the idea that affirmative action shoud do a better job of accounting for true economic deprivation (although that's inherently harder to identify than race; despite having an upper-middle class upbringing, the state paid my way through my undergraduate years because my parents had the good sense to divorce at just the right moment). Still, only the willfully ignorant would deny that, in this society, institutionalized racism--and sexism--do nothing to prevent otherwise able people from accumulating some of the "qualifications" that are practically a birthright for most of us.

But I wasn't going to talk about affirmative action...

Oh, and before anyone suggests that my Head Start reference effectively equates minority college students with pre-school toddlers, let me respond. My only point was that the rationale for both programs is similar: give otherwise intelligent, able, people--kids, in one case, young adults in the other--the chance to exploit their gifts fully without allowing the unfair penalties of birth, race, or class to bar them permanently from opportunities that they deserve every bit as much as their more privileged counterparts. Yet, despite the similarities in the surface "unfairness" of affirmative action and Head Start (which could, for all we know, benefit rich kids as much as poor ones), nobody claims that the latter demeans poor families or their children.

"Still, only the willfully ignorant would deny that, in this society, institutionalized racism--and sexism--do nothing to prevent otherwise able people from accumulating some of the "qualifications" that are practically a birthright for most of us."

Oops, that sentence meant exactly the opposite of what was intended. Back to English 101 for me (hope I get one of those PC professors:)).

Nah, I wasn't referring to you, Jordan.

The point of these bake sales, on the other hand, is to ridicule. You may argue that they are intended to ridicule college administrators rather than minority students, but that distinction seems to be lost on a lot of minority students. Indeed, once these students have expressed their offense, the proprietors of said bake sales have a choice: either shut them down, or acknowledge that they--the proprietors--couldn't care less that their (innocent) fellow students are feeling insulted and demeaned. Nice people would choose the former option.

Is it really the case that the minority students feel that they are being ridiculed? Or are many of them just angry because someone has implied that they are not entitled to special treatment?

At any rate, taking down the bake sale is not the choice for nice people. If minority students are offended, it is because of a misunderstanding. The way to deal with misunderstandings is not to sit down and shut up, it is to be more clear about what you are trying to do.

Furthermore, given how unfair the students running the bake sale probably think affirmative action is, not protesting it because of a few specific people who have wrongly taken offense is not exactly a way to avoid harm. Sure, by shutting it down, a few people in your immediate vicinity have their (inadvertently hurt) feelings soothed, but a system that (in the minds of people doing the bake sale, since I don't want to get into a debate on affirmative action) unfairly screws people over and is racist and divisive has one less bit of criticism leveled at it. These bake sales are -- at the very least -- not gratuitously offensive or uncivil, they do not interfere with school functions, they are not deliberately hurtful, and they are not full of the kind of hate that that fellow several posts down included in his email. Given all this relative inoffensiveness, it seems that any immediate harm they do would be outweighed by the long-term ostensible harm affirmative action does -- and if the bake sales help end the latter, shutting them down is not really the kinder option.

X, you give the example of students who are offended by a bake sale, but ultimately misunderstand the purpose of the bake sale to be one that is personally offensive rather than ridiculing a school policy.

Similarly you suggest that those students who ridicule affirmative action misread the intent of affirmative action (as one that is degrading).

On the one hand, students expressing their offense through public discourse are silenced. On the other, those who immediately seek administrative discourse are coddled and praised. Do you think that if some black students went to an administrator's office and cried that they would immediately drop affirmative action programs?

The situation is very alarming.

I think it's worth noting that the end result of college administrations' pandering to minority students offenses has not been an increase in civility on campuses. Administrative action legitimizes the behavior of students who wrongly seek administrative solutions to speech they disapprove of.

Just as a pertinent example that I'm a bit knowledgeable about:

Some students at my college recently took offense to an article that I wrote where I characterized the liberal policy of "Diversity" as paternalistic, derided its attempt to have some sort of precise balance of victim groups as zoological, and disapproved of student self-segregation by calling places that encourage this ghettoes. Many students immediately called my article (which they picked up and chose to read) "harassment" and attempted to have the funding removed from the publication it was printed in, or dissolve the group entirely. I haven't seen any indication, from the responses I have seen, that the people who are offended understand the meaning of what I said.

Now, the administration of the college itself has not done anything to suppress my speech, but at the same time, it has encouraged the misunderstanding of my article. In a letter, the president of my college by called my speech "hateful." In my opinion, that wasn't designed to promote open discourse or promote civility, it was meant to try and dismiss my speech without engaging it (See: Godwin's Law).

What determines what's hateful? Well, apparently strongly disapproving of policies that promote segregation and presume the inferiority of people of certain races is "hateful." I missed that memo. Having my school declare that hateful doesn't speak to me of tolerance or civility, it speaks of utilizing (and fostering) the outrage of a few to attempt to discredit legitimate criticism of the status quo. The administration is perfectly within its rights to do so, but lets not claim that it's for reasons of maintaining civility when the administration's own behavior validates other "uncivil" discourse.

A minor note that I meant to include:

After:

"Well, apparently strongly disapproving of policies that promote segregation and presume the inferiority of people of certain races is 'hateful.' I missed that memo."

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of "diversity," it's hard to see how my points can be honestly argued as hateful. Ignorant or misunderstanding of the policies? Sure, those are, in my eyes, defensible positions. They come from a different set of assumptions than I generally hold, and don't actually address the argument I put forth, but they're respectable. The other... Not from what I've seen.

I don't want to beat a dead horse (it's smelly and it frightens the children), but I did find this little nugget from the website of an outfit called Accuracy in Academia, a group that wants to impose its own right-wing version of PC on campus (but that's an argument for another time). It refers to one of the more notorious proprietors of an affirmative action bake sale, whose operation was originally shut down by his school's administrators:

"Such a fate befell young Will Coggin at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. Coggin did not help matters by playing the game "Ghettopoly" while holding the sale. Designed along the lines of Monopoly, Ghettopoly features crackhouses in place of Boardwalk and Park Place. Even African-Americans suspicious of government affirmative action policies find the game offensive."

Ghettopoly. Nice. Very nice. No intent to demean anyone there, no siree.

Disappointing to see you using such a clear straw man, X.

So one person plays a tasteless game and suddenly every bake sale is run by people out to be insulting?

Strangely, I'm not buying it.

My point was not that all proprietors of affirmative action bake sales are self-conscious bigots, nor that all of them are as obnoxious as Mr. Coggin. Still, I do sense an underlying hostility behind these events, and it is directed not just at college administrators, but also at the beneficiaries of affirmative action itself. Mr. Coggin's animus is obviously greater and more corrosive than that of most affirmative action opponents, but it is not altogether unique or exceptional. He is, in that sense, more than just a "straw man".

Now, just to be clear here, I am not accusing anyone of being a racist. I wouldn't even direct that charge at Mr. Coggin, though he certainly has done nothing to convince me that he isn't. I do not believe that the vast majority of people who participate in affirmative action bake sales bear any general malice toward minority ethnic or racial groups, nor do they wish them any harm.

I do, however, think that there is a resentment at work here that is greater and more general than affirmative action opponents would care to admit. Just look at the rhetoric that surrounds their side of the debate: "unqualified" people are receiving "undeserved" benefits and other "special treatment" that they "haven't earned" and are thus "taking away" opportunities that "rightfully" belong to others. Since minority students knowingly participate in affirmative action programs, and minority student groups generally support and defend them, it seems reasonable to assume that they, too, are among the targets of this anger.

While I can appreciate the attempts of posters here to engage X in a conversation, I hardly see the point of a back-and-forth with someone who insists that it's axiomatic that speech-code enforcers are "the good guys." I think X even concedes that there's no point in any such conversation ("... condemned to degenerate into what we geezers refer to as a 'tastes great-less filling' argument (after a beer advertising campaign of the late 1970s). That is, you'll spout your talking points, I'll spout mine, and after all that spouting nothing will be accomplished beyond the rehearsal of numerous well-rehearsed, but hackneyed, bon mots (or is that bons mot?)").

Bringing up Ghettopoly is still a straw man argument, X. Nobody was arguing that there are never any potentially offensive or demeaning activities that have taken place.

You abstract this away into a general sense of hostility, whereby minority students are being told that they are unqualified to attend this or that school, but as far as I can tell, by the actions we are discussing no students are singled out, they just feel that way. If we can't draw the line between "feeling like [one is] being attacked" and "being attacked" ... That's a dangerous line to cross. Even if we draw that distinction, attacks on the "good old boys" network of privilege amongst white males was, and still is, part of the rhetoric used by civil rights activists. Is this rhetoric only "uncivil" and "demeaning" when it is used to draw attention to lowered standards for minorities, and not when it is used to draw attention to lowered standards for whites?

I'm probably going to have to bow out here, I don't find your stances coherent enough to continue to try and argue against. What it comes down to, in the end, is that most of us here acknowledge dealing with speech you don't like with censorship is a priori more uncivil, and promoting of uncivility, than the speech itself, no matter how disagreeable. The civility of the truncheon is not civility at all, but silence enforced by brutish threats and actions.