At Syracuse University, an irreverent student-run television show has offended students and faculty who find its content to be "racist" and sexist." That's to be expected; so is the campus-wide forum that took place last night where angry students demanded that the student perpetrators of the offensive show apologize, be punished, be silenced, etc. "We're angry, and we demand change," one student allegedly yelled. "To me, you're no different than the Klan," another student told the show's creators. The show has made light of such touchy issues as date rape and has, some say, been insensitive to women and minorities. Apparently, it has also disparaged individual students and administrators.

Also fairly typical, if disappointing, is the manner in which the show's student staff abjectly accepted the criticism for daring to engage in offensive expression. "As executive producer, I take full responsibility for all the content on my show," said the show's executive producer. "That said, I truly apologize from the bottom of my heart for all the content you've seen." Another student involved with the show said, "Tonight really brought home the damage that we have done."

No one appears to have pointed out that the show's expression was fully protected under the law; that no one has the right not to be offended; or that censorship is hardly the way to ensure either a tolerant or an intellectually vital community. Many, however, argued that the university should not be funding such offensive student projects (in other words, that speech codes are desirable and that the university should be applying a political litmus test to all student projects, funding only those that are ideologically acceptable). Many also demanded that the students who made the show be expelled. Meanwhile, the show has been cancelled, and efforts are under way to dissolve the student-run TV station.

This is all outrageous, but it's also par for the course at higher education institutions where no real value is placed on unfettered expression and free inquiry. The students who made the show--whose motto was, "watch, get informed and get offended"--tried to explain that their intention was to broach hot-button issues in a humorous way that would facilitate discussion and debate. But as one member of the show staff tried to deliver a statement about the show's intentions, he was shouted down by a professor:

Interrupting Gaetjens--and despite objections from Gaetjens and moderators of the event--Winston Grady-Willis, associate professor of African-American studies, grabbed a microphone and berated Gaetjens and HillTV for trying to justify their actions.

"I wouldn't have to leave quite yet, but I'm trying to make a statement," Grady-Willis said, explaining why he was walking out of the forum. "For you to sit condescendingly in front of people you hurt is profoundly offensive."

When Gaetjens made objections asking to be allowed to finish his statement, he was shushed by the audience. Grady-Willis and Paula Johnson, professor at the College of Law, then walked out of the room to applause.

Syracuse's chancellor, Nancy Cantor, was out of town last night and missed the gala display of intolerance on her campus. She is allegedly looking into whether the students associated with the offending show have violated the school's student code of conduct. But she would do better to put a full, definitive stop to the mob mentality that is arising at Syracuse, and to teach both students and faculty there a much needed lesson in civics. So far, though, she's just hedging her bets. "Of course I believe in the First Amendment and the independence of student media," she said. "But at some point you need to think about the painful impact on others. . . . At the end of the day, we are all interdependent."

Thanks to Maurice Black for the link.

UPDATE: Clarification: Syracuse is a private university, and thus has the right to impose speech codes if it wishes. However, the university also has an obligation to maintain truth in advertising, and to adhere to its own stated policies. According to the Syracuse student handbook, "Students have the right to express themselves freely on any subject provided they do so in a manner that does not violate the Code of Conduct. Students, in turn, have the responsibility to respect the rights of all members of the University to exercise these freedoms." The Code of Conduct touches on expression only in its clause on harassment, which forbids "Harassment, whether physical or verbal, oral or written, which is beyond the bounds of protected free speech, directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as 'fighting words,' and likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace." In other words, Syracuse voluntarily espouses the principle of free speech, and has an obligation--which it is not presently meeting--to uphold its stated policies on speech.

UPDATE UPDATE: Nancy Cantor announced yesterday that Syracuse has "de-recognized" the TV show. A "task force" has been formed to create a new, presumably more sensitive and politically correct, student-run TV station. Nancy Cantor has really dropped the ball on this one.

No one appears to have pointed out that the show's expression was fully protected under the law...

I mostly agree about the shamefulness of the response, particularly from the faculty, but still have to ask -- protected under what law?

That would be the First Amendment.

Syracuse is a private university. (Isn't it?) I fail to see any constitutional issue regarding what they can or can't put on their television station.

There's nothing new here. Administrators, alums, students, parents, and so forth have always been scandalized by the more avant-garde (and often deliberately sophomoric) stuff that happens on campus. Ezra Pound was terminated from his teaching job at Wabash College for using bad language in class. Whittaker Chambers was almost thrown out of Columbia for a sacrilegious story in the student literary mag (as usual, there were various attempts by the administration to collect all copies, etc. etc.). 'twas ever thus.

Well, it may be a private school, but if they take just about any Federal money beyond the students getting Pell Grants, then they are on the hook as a govt. funded actor.

Go and ask the Mormons about that: it's why BYU takes ZERO Federal dollars, so that they can engage in religious discrimination regarding student behaviour. It's their money, they can go ahead and do what they want with it.

But I seriously doubt that Syracuse is so ideologically or fiscally pure as to not be bound by the Bill of Rights. They want all those Fed. research dollars, they gotta play by the rules. Which you'd think that they could READ, being a uni. and all, but it seems that the Bill of Rights is too complex a document to trouble their little authoritarian souls.

"Free speech for me, but not for thee" indeed!

Exactly what I thought the minute I read it, where is the First Amendment Rights and whatever happened to defending them? Regardless of whether they are offensive or not, they have a right of expression. More important though is the poor example set by that faculty, modeling nothing more than bully tactics to get their point across and shut down their opposition. As Mr. Mercer above writes, "Free speech for me, but not for thee" indeed!" It is easy to say one is for free speech. Actually defending it is another thing, and it seems, in this case, the faculty just failed.

It seems that HillTV is a cable television station, so since it does not broadcast over the public airwaves it is not governed by the FCC...can someone clarify this?

Regardless of whether these students automatically receive legal protection from the First Amendment, you would think that a university, an institution whose existence is predicated upon free and open speech, would be eager to extend these rights de facto to its students. The reasons for this should be painfully obvious to the professoriate, although it seems like they rarely are. Today's politically correct diversity-speak might very well be in need of constitutional protections tomorrow.

Just goes to show that when part of the Left screamed "free speech" back in the sixties, what they really meant was "protected speech for me and my ideological allies."

Well, it may be a private school, but if they take just about any Federal money beyond the students getting Pell Grants, then they are on the hook as a govt. funded actor.

IANAL, but my understanding is that accepting federal money puts a private school on the hook for certain specific obligations (of which Title IX is probably the best-known), not for anything to which the government is held.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Winston Grady-Willis isn't a bullying jackass, just questioning the assertion that there's a law being violated.

Apologies for this, but I've been attempting to post a comment, but each time I do, I am told that my "comment was denied for questionable content." I'm not sure what is making my comment so questionable. This is a test, so feel free to delete it.

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've created a new discussion thread to encourage responses to the last two comments in particular.

WE THE NEW BLACK PANTHER FOR SELF DEFENSE NEW YORK CHAPTER CALL FOR THE EXPULSION OF THOSE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN PRODUCING AND AIRING THAT OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.......WE DEMAND MS CANTOR NOT TO TRY AND FIND A LEGAL WAY NOT TO EXPEL THESE STUDENTS BY LOOKING IN THE "STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT" WHICH WILL PROBABLY NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO EXPELL THESE STUDENTS....IF SOMEONE WOULD HAVE POKED FUN AT THE SO CALLED JEWISH HOLACAUST YOU WOULD BE APOLOGIZING FOR THAT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE...!!! EXPELLED...DISBANDING THE TV SHOW IS JUST PUTTING A BANDAID ON THE WOUND....JUST COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT RACISM EXIST AND TAKE IT FROM THERE