Here’s an interesting article from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which holds that “There’s no need to sacrifice free speech for a campus to be accepting of LGBT students.” Prohibiting speech deemed to be “unwelcoming” of LGBT students really isn’t a good idea.
Another ‘Progressive’ Idea We Can Do Without
ADVERTISEMENT
12 Comments for “Another ‘Progressive’ Idea We Can Do Without”
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m confused by the case sited. Is the student actually claiming that receiving unwanted emails was a violation of her right to freedom of religion? That’s absurd. We all have the right to freedom of speech and religion. We don’t have a right to stifle the speech of others (although we do have the right to exercise our own free speech rights in responding to those with whom we disagree). Above all, we do not have the right to never be offended. Religious beliefs often (actually, always always) run directly counter to the religious beliefs of others. That means that people whose religious teaches the homosexuality is a sin have every right to say that. I have the same right to disagree with those teachings and even to mock them.
The problem is not so much that free speech rights are being violated (and on occasion they are), but that for some reason people feel they have the right to never hear an opinion that they disagree with. No such right exists and I guess people need to be reminded of that.
posted by JohnAGJ on
The one who apparently believes they have a right to never be offended, in this case by religious beliefs opposing their own views on homosexuality, is the person who filed a complaint against this Muslim student employee. He replied privately to the email sent to him and expressed his disagreement. If the recipient didn’t want his opinion they shouldn’t have emailed him in the first place.
More on this case at FIRE: http://thefire.org/case/682
I may disagree with what this man said or even think he is a jerk if I ever meet him, but I strongly support his right to express his opinion.
posted by Jerry on
I have to agree with you on this. I have a suspicion that had the professor received an even nastier reply to her announcement from a Christian, she would have dropped his email address from her file and if the opportunity arose, she would have written him off as a close-minded religious bigot. Perhaps it was his name Jihad that rattled her, who knows, but I can well understand that he did not want emails about gay events just as I would not want emails about Muslim events or Christian events for that matter. I should be able to ask that my name be taken off a mailing list.
posted by Houndentenor on
I guess I just can’t find the sympathy for these crybabies. We’ve all been in situations where our views were the minority opinion. Suck it up. We also all get annoying emails (usually of the sort easily debunked on snopes.com) or put up with annoying liberal/conservative relatives at holidays. Everyone deals with this no matter who they are over some topic (usually topics like religion and politics that should probably be avoided in social situations anyway). I don’t see anything wrong with asking someone not to send any more emails on a certain topic. I have done it. I didn’t go into more detail but sometimes you just have to let that old colleague or distant relative know that you just don’t appreciate their sense of humor (esp when it comes to racist and/or sexist jokes) or agree with their politics and leave it at that. Most systems allow you to block people. Hasn’t everyone “unfriended” someone from a social media site by now? I had to delete an old college roommate and fraternity brother because I was tired of reading his openly racist comments about Obama. Now I don’t have to read them. His free speech rights are not violated by me refusing to read it. Those interested are still free to read those comments if they so choose.
Adults should be able to resolve issues like this without going to the administration or filing complaints with the website. Now in the cases of true harassment, it’s good we have laws against that. But too many people are too quick to yell harassment just because someone said something they don’t like. Tell them to **** off! (Being polite isn’t going to work since a polite person wouldn’t be sending out those sorts of emails or saying those sorts of things in front of you in the first place.)
posted by Hunter on
There are some questions here — is the university a private institution? If so, I would guess they have much more leeway on such policies than a publicly-funded institution.
That said, the reaction to the student-employee’s e-mail was extreme — and indefensible — by any standard.
And frankly, the idea of regulating speech at any institution of higher learning is repulsive. Being exposed to people who aren’t just like you is one of the great pluses of a higher education, and regulating speech in that environment is certainly not adding to the educational experience.
However, I do question Stephen H. Miller’s characterization of speech codes as a “progressive idea.” They’re not, particularly. He should investigate the speech, dress, and behavior codes at so-called “Christian” universities in this country. But then, it’s Miller, isn’t it?
posted by Jimmy on
Thought Police are a bad idea, regardless of the justifications.
posted by BobN on
The idea that punishment for personal expression is new is absurd. To hear the ” conservatives” talk about it, one would think America was a Paradise of Free Speech up until, say, Jimmy Carter. Nevermind the thousands of people not just given letters of reprimand, but actually jailed for expressing unpopular opinions in the past.
I’m a firm believer in free speech, without it we’d still be criminals. But I cannot abide the disingenuous meme that threats to free speech are new or come only from the left.
posted by Jorge on
We don’t have a right to stifle the speech of others (although we do have the right to exercise our own free speech rights in responding to those with whom we disagree). Above all, we do not have the right to never be offended.
…….
Nothing wrong with trying, as long as it’s not with the authority of the government.
There are some places where certain types of political or social pontificating are simply uncalled for. I have been known to heckle speakers who rankle me, and I make no apologies for it. Usually it is wiser to simply dissent with the same force (or less) than the speaker.
posted by Houndentenor on
I made a similar case a few years ago on a forum about classical music. I had been to a performance where one of the singers was so bad that the management should never have allowed them on stage. I suppressed my urge to boo. I shouldn’t have. If it’s acceptable for me to cheer “brava” after a great performance, is it not then acceptable for me to boo? I still haven’t done it, but I might in the next season.
I’m not a fan of shouting people down. That does interfere with their freedom of speech. Other people came to hear them and the shouters are not allowing those who want to hear to be able to do so. But you do have a right to heckle back in response to something that has been said. Or to give your own speech or respond in some way.
posted by Jorge on
….Or to give your own speech or respond in some way.
A couple of days ago on the train this woman preached about Jesus and God. Sometimes I’m okay with that, sometimes I think it’s disruptive. This time, the speaker had to make a statement early on about the Bible, and it establishes marriage, man and woman. She did not cross the line or mention gay marriage at all, but that’s what I think it was about. In the future I want to take it upon myself to respond with my concerns. After all, this is a democracy.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. I’m familiar with the subway preachers. I know it’s not actually true but it does seem like I only encountered them when I was hung over. And of course there were almost always Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists at the larger stations. So long as they don’t make me miss my train, I think they have every right to pass out literature. I also have the right to ignore them. They also have the right to rail against homosexuality. I hope they are aware that I have the same right to denounce them and their beliefs. I don’t bother so far but who knows about tomorrow.
A few years ago I was in Amsterdam so I visited the Anne Frank house. At the end of the tour they had a multi-media exhibit where people could respond to various questions. Several of them involved allowing truly despicable public statements (against minorities, etc.). Only a few of us in the group thought such speech should be allowed. I have no proof but I suspect that all of us were Americans. For obvious reasons, Europeans get nervous when anyone wants to scapegoat problems on a minority group. For equally obvious reasons Holocaust denial is a crime. I can understand that based on their history, but our history includes the trial of John Peter Zenger. I realized just how American I was in my world view on that trip. I’m for letting everyone say what they really mean with the hope that stupid ideas will not catch on with the public. It also gives dissenters a chance to respond. Driving hatred underground allows it to grow unchecked. It also feeds a persecution complex. Personally I’d just as soon know who the racists, sexists and homophobes are.
posted by Jorge on
It’s very interesting. The Jehovah’s Witnesses literature is the only thing outside my own religion that ever makes any sense to me. Although it is hit and miss.
The problem I have with the preachers talking about God and Jesus and Jesus saves and so on and so forth is that that is all they ever talk about. I’m sorry but I have never felt comfortable with long-haired men–say, maybe I should say that next time. I don’t believe that you have to think a certain way about the higher power in order to be a worthy, and I find that suggestion offensive. Anyway, the JW literature actually talks about real life issues sometimes, so it raises ethical questions even though it’s a little cooky.