Zelinsky: Censoring speech at Yale
Zelinsky: Censoring speech at Yale
Friday, April 22, 2011
Last Monday, I wrote in the Yale Daily News critiquing Alderman Mike Jones ’11 and his conception of the Ward 1 aldermanship (“Taking our alderman to task,” April 17). The same day, a series of anonymous posters around campus accused me of “classism” and “racism,” among other charges. As President Obama would say, this is “a teachable moment”: Regardless of their offensive content, the authors of the posters had a right to express their views, however incendiary. While I disagree with these offensive claims, I defend the rights of their authors to criticize me anonymously. My opponents’ claims are protected speech. They do not directly incite violence or harm the physical safety of others. Sadly, in recent months at Yale, we have forgotten this commitment to free speech.
Instead of defending this traditional definition of free expression based on a rich Western history and Yale’s liberal arts commitments, many on campus contend that we should ban speech that creates some form of “hostile environment.” On these grounds, the Christian preacher Christopher Yuan was denied public space in Dwight Hall simply because he does not conform to progressive notions of homosexuality. Similarly, while it may rightfully draw attention to unaddressed cases of sexual assault, the Title IX case attacks DKE for boorish, but ultimately harmless chants that no one could confuse with a serious call to rape. Only yesterday, Jordon Walker ’13 authored a column in the News (“An insulting prank and hypocritical response,” April 21), disappointed that a religiously insensitive prank did not merit disciplinary action.
Banning any speech that purportedly creates a “hostile environment” begs the critical questions: Who decides when an environment has become hostile? The Dean’s Office? The target of such speech (like me)? The federal government? No matter who decides, the result will be the same: Personal ideologies color the decisions. This is the antithesis of a commitment to free speech.
Had anonymous posters like those aimed at me attacked the Title IX claimants in a similar tone, Dean Miller would have condemned the posters and formed an investigatory committee. When the same happens to a conservative, white male we expect no such response — nor should we, for either group.
Yale would not be alone in upholding our tradition of free speech against its modern enemies. Recently, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church and its right to proclaim its truly reprehensible views. Our society protects such speech, however incorrigible, because we have the right to offend. Yale has a unique obligation to protect all forms of dialogue — regardless of content — because of a university’s role as a marketplace and incubator of ideas. If we clamped down on all controversial thought, we would have trouble producing the next Paul Krugmans ’74 and Bill Buckleys ’50.
The banning of offensive (as opposed to truly dangerous) speech discourages the most effective method of combating such expression: more speech. Refutation and counterprotest should be the mantra of the day. Indeed, Yale’s LBGTQ community deserves credit for successfully adopting this approach when Yuan spoke at the African-American Cultural Center in early April. Mr. Yuan was outclassed and outmaneuvered by his audience’s arguments. Banning him and other hateful people only makes them martyrs for their cause. Engaging such persons exposes them as the intellectual frauds they are.
In this spirit, I wholeheartedly support those who posted these attacks against me. I challenge them to identify themselves and engage me in a serious debate over the issues I raised on Monday. But I acknowledge that those who speak anonymously follow in the footsteps of men like James Madison, who signed Federalist 10 with a pseudonym.
Yale must reclaim the mantle of free speech in order to preserve this unique community — in the words of George Pierson, “a tradition, a company of scholars, a society of friends.” The day we abandon free expression, we cease to stand for our core values.
Nathaniel Zelinsky is a sophomore in Davenport College.
Comments
Jess 1 year, 1 month ago
You are not a visible member of a marginalized group on Yale's campus. You do not publicly identify yourself with any identity group that experiences targeted violence. The posters issuing attacks on you were perhaps offensive, but not in the least threatening (except perhaps to your political career).
Don't even compare your own ability to weather this experience to the reactions of women to the DKE chant.
You ask who gets to make the decision of when offensive speech creates a hostile environment. The answer: the people who feel threatened. Regardless of what the intention of the speaker was, if one person or groups' speech threatens another group and thus impedes their ability to express themselves freely, that speech is unacceptable.
Leah 1 year, 1 month ago
Remember that incidents like DKE are not the main issue the Title IX complaint is trying to address. The alleged 'hostile environment' isn't a problem of too much speech, it's the way Yale handles sexual assault and harassment. The investigation will determine whether Yale discourages sexual assault victims from pressing charges/doesn't properly discipline their attackers/etc. While we wait for the result, it's deceptive to claim that this is merely an issue of inflammatory speech.
13 1 year, 1 month ago
Thank you for saying everything I didn't know I wanted to agree with.
and Leah makes a good point but that's hardly what the article is about.
domlawton 1 year, 1 month ago
The DKE chants were inherently threatening to women by virtue of nothing but the fact they were women, and inherently offensive -- one might even say violent -- to rape survivors by virtue of nothing but the fact that they had the temerity to be rape survivors.
The flyers making fun of your position were posted because you decided to publish a page of blithe idiocy in the Yale Daily News.
Apples and oranges, Mr. Zelinsky, and moldy oranges at that.
Yalie14 1 year, 1 month ago
I disagree with you on basically all of your political views, but solid article here.
morse_14 1 year, 1 month ago
Bravo. We need more columns that stand up for everyone's rights--rights that exist regardless of one's gender or the color of one's skin.
Quals 1 year, 1 month ago
Much has been said about how a Singapore campus would have less freedom of speech. But I argue that those students will be a hell of a lot freer to express themselves than in this prison of PC/multiculturalism. Consider the following:
Don't think is in America's interests to support Israel, and believe the Israel lobby is too powerful? You must be a antisemitic/nazi/holocaust denier.
Don't think that Islam is as tolerant and innocuous as the PC crowd says it is? You must be a bigot.
You think the concept of racial pride is absurd, and if it weren't, certain races would have more to be "proud about" than others? Well, you are pretty darn racist.
You are not happy about folks getting into places you can't even though you studied hard to get the better grades, simply because you were the PC skin color. See above.
You think that the evidence for man-made global warming is lackluster, especially given that all debate to the contrary is suppressed? You are a backwards right-wing pawn of the oil industries.
You think that religious faith is as stupid as believing in Santa? Intolerant prick.
Excuse me while I short some Treasury bonds and buy a ticket to China.
Branford73 1 year, 1 month ago
That notion couldn't be more wrong in a nation and culture that values free speech. One who believes speech itself is violent likely has not experienced true violence.
Skeptic 1 year, 1 month ago
Tiresome, tiresome.... been there, done that. Yale has a seasoned policy that has, and will, serve us well regarding these issues. As so often happens, YDN writers are (willfully?) historically ignorant, so they are doomed to re-invent the wheel, and worse.... Once again, check out the "Woodward Report"...http://yalecollege.yale.edu/content/free-expression-peaceful-dissent-and-demonstrations
dgk24 1 year, 1 month ago
"You ask who gets to make the decision of when offensive speech creates a hostile environment. The answer: the people who feel threatened. Regardless of what the intention of the speaker was, if one person or groups' speech threatens another group and thus impedes their ability to express themselves freely, that speech is unacceptable."
Let's say it's five years ago, when we had one fewer kinetic military action but somehow twenty times the anti-kinetic-military-action fervor. A raucous Code Pink demonstration causes veterans to feel threatened. Shut it down? Who decides whether the vets' perceptions are accurate? Some hypothetical impartial judge? A panel of "free speech experts"? You?
What's tiresome about liberal demands for restrictions on free speech (but I repeat myself!) is that they always boil down to some variation on: "Shut up," she explained.
Jess 1 year, 1 month ago
@dhk24: Yes, of course. I think some of Code Pink's actions, particularly protesting a ****ing hospital for people who have been through unthinkable trauma, are deplorable.
Perhaps people will find your views more sympathetic if you didn't automatically assume that everyone who disagrees with you is inconsistent.
yale_eleven 1 year, 1 month ago
@Jess: My visibly marginalized group on Yale's campus thinks YOUR comments are offensive. We're going to complain to our Freshman Counselors, Dean Mary Miller, and the United States Federal Government so they can harass you for your insensitivity. How do you like it now?
Seriously though I just don't see how you prevent the "offensiveness standard" of meriting discipline from becoming a political tool for people to silence other people they disagree with. For every case of truly offensive speech, there will be ten others that are frivolous, attention seeking, or politically devious on the part of the "victims."
yalestudent 1 year, 1 month ago
Branford73: Have you heard of hate speech or verbal sexual harassment? Both are cases in which our country has agreed, as a country, that we want to limit speech because it constitutes violence.
hrsn 1 year, 1 month ago
@Yalestudent: Our country has also agreed, as a country, to prohibit same-sex marriage, criminalize puffing a joint, drive a reasonable speed on open roadways,etc. Would you like to hold those up as dispositive as well? Branford73 has it right; you don't know violence, but want to pretend you can experience it through speech.
yale_eleven 1 year, 1 month ago
@yalestudent: Not true, no law has ever passed Congress that explicitly criminalizes "hate speech," and attempts to use existing laws to prosecute "hate speech" have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional. Check out the recent case about offensive protests at soldiers' funerals (Snyder v. Phelps). The only time something close to "hate speech" (in this case, verbal sexual harassment) has been ruled prosecutable is in the workforce when it's part of a broader "hostile work environment" encouraged by an employer that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but even here there is no legal argument that such speech constitutes literal "violence."
Branford73 1 year, 1 month ago
@yalestudent, there are loads of offensive acts and illegal acts which are not violent. Neither condition is sufficient alone or in combination to constitute violence. Someone who steals your laptop from your study carrel when you go to the bathroom has not committed an act of violence.
Someone who yells a racial epithet at you has not committed an act of violence. If you punch him in the face breaking his nose, THAT is an act of violence (maybe justified, but still).
Conflating all sorts of offensive behavior into acts of violence trivializes actual violence. A similar conflation often occurs when people assume all reported rates of sexual assault are reported rates of rape.
dgk24 1 year, 1 month ago
"That notion couldn't be more wrong in a nation and culture that values free speech. One who believes speech itself is violent likely has not experienced true violence."
Quite true. I'm not a fan of the "fighting words" exception to free speech, but it is fairly well-established precedent at this point. Fortunately, it seems every chance the Supreme Court has to rule on it, they narrow its scope.
The one case where speech restrictions make sense to me (outside of "loose lips sink ships" contexts, of course) is the "incitement" exception. It's fairly intuitive; I'd compare using speech to agitate a crowd to violence with giving verbal orders to a hitman. In both cases, the crime is in the words and in the intent of those words, and should not be protected.
@Jess: You are indeed consistent. Unfortunately, it appears that you are consistently against the proposition that the answer to bad speech isn't censorship, but more speech. Glad we can agree that Code Pink is a bunch of dingbats though.
penny_lane 1 year, 1 month ago
Mr. Zelinsky:
I think a distinction ought to be drawn between asking for censorship and asking for censure. Walker was asking that mockery of his religion be censored. Feminists on campus have asked that DKE, the authors of the Scouting Report, et al. be censured. The distinction is important. Censure should be highly valued by proponents of free speech.
A central claim of your argument is that words are not violent. What say you to the fact that words can constitute harassment? Are you arguing that sexual harassment should be accepted by a society in which we value free speech? What about the effect such harassment often has of silencing a harassed party? I would be genuinely interested in hearing your answers to these questions.
Barbara Kruger has a place in this discussion of what does and does not constitute violence. In closing, this image: http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/541bg.jpg
jnewsham 1 year, 1 month ago
Yet another Yalie who doesn't know what "begging the question" means. Sigh.
T 1 year, 1 month ago
For a rape survivor to hear "No means yes, yes means anal" chanted by their windows is violent, because it's a trigger. No ifs, no buts.
You may argue it ought to be protected speech anyway, but violent is simply what it is. To say otherwise is offensive -- not in a legalistic way, though I understand that's very much in vogue, but in that saying otherwise reveals you to be an offensively stupid and oblivious individual.
challenge 1 year, 1 month ago
We can't really consider all offensive speech to be hate speech or violent speech. To say that any rape victim has a right to silence those who trivialize rape goes too far. Are they ignorant? Yes, but being uncomfortable around ignorant people is to be expected. That is like a black person getting uncomfortable anytime someone suggests that we live in a post-racial world. That doesn't give that person the right to say people who claim racism is dead ought to be silenced, just because it demeans their experiences. Comfort is a luxury not a right
grumpyalum 1 year, 1 month ago
No, I'm sorry. When there are a large group of men chanting that your consent doesn't matter, that they will rape you if you are in a sexual situation with them, that's a completely different situation.
The analogue is if a group of klansmen are walking near the af-am house going "kill the n**".
That is no longer an issue of comfort - you have no idea if what they are saying is a joke or a serious action.
DebbieDowner 1 year, 1 month ago
Oh hey
http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude/ImageMacro/7460153/IM-NOT-RACIST-AND-CLASSIST-Im-just-committed-to-free-speech
Branford73 1 year, 1 month ago
@T, sorry but the post-postmodern affectation of saying certain types of offensive speech are violent because you (or a small avant-garde elite) say so just isn't going to fly.
If you would like we can draw up and sign a contract under which we both agree you can scream at me from as close as three inches from my face the foulest, most insulting, most threatening words you can imagine for 15 minutes and then I can punch you in the face as hard as I like. I'm an old fart so it won't likely kill you. But you will have an appreciation for what is violence and what is not.
HumanStupidity 1 year, 1 month ago
Great article. Finally someone who understands free speech.
Now that is the problem: political correctness carves out a protected niche for women, blacks, Asians, gays, transvestites, Polish, Italians, transgendered, handicapped, Swedes, Russians, etc.
Only white American heterosexual Males are not protected.
Either speech is free, or there are 100 restrictions.
Hate speech laws started to encroach on free speech specifically when inciting violence. Like your example.
Asking to lynch blacks, that would be covered by basic hate speech laws. Directly inciting violence, that might be the only exception to free speech. And yelling "fire" in the cinema.
Now extending this to all kind of jokes, speech about racial differences, this is where the problem starts
Human-Stupidity.com blog has lots of articles about political correctness
vindeezel 1 year, 1 month ago
Feminists and free speech are like oil and water: http://goo.gl/ahH3c
For the bigger picture, I think this video pretty accurately captures the situation today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpL...
Branford73 1 year, 1 month ago
Ay yi yi, an invasion by Men's Rights Advocates. Vin, I mourn the first three minutes of that video, time I will never get back. Seriously, three minutes of complaining about paying for the first date dinner???
MisandryMotif 1 year, 1 month ago
"You are not a visible member of a marginalized group on Yale's campus. You do not publicly identify yourself with any identity group that experiences targeted violence."
All young college men are members of a marginalized group: young men. Young men account for only 40% of college graduates, are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than young women, more likely to be a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a member of the opposite sex, and far more likely to be a victim of a false rape accusation.
Worse, these issues are deemed inconsequential or ignored, because, well, "men deserve it".
If any group experiences hostility in the western world today, it is males. From boys in kindergarten to young men in college to men entering the workforce, their masculinity is demonized. Boys are taught they are "broken" when they don't want to sit still like little girls in classrooms. Young men on campus are constantly told they are rapists who need to put an end to rape. Men are discriminated against in college admissions and corporate hiring and promotions simply for having been born with male genitalia. And in corporate America, sexual harassment only goes one way.
Sexual Harassment and You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAG...
:)
Or login with:
OpenID