“[The proposed campus speech policy] prioritizes the protection of ideas over the protection of people and fails to recognize that behind every idea is a person with a particular subjectivity. Our beliefs, and the consequences of our actions, are choices we make. Any claim to the ‘protection of ideas’ that is not founded in the insurance of people’s safety poses a real threat — one which targets most pointedly marginalized people. An ideology of free speech absolutism that prioritizes ideas over people, giving ‘deeply offensive’ language a platform at this institution, will inevitably imperil marginalized students.”
—The Coalition Against Racist Education Now, a Williams College student activist group, in their rebuttal to a faculty petition calling for adoption of the “Chicago Principles, “based on the campus speech policies of the University of Chicago, which hold that “all members of the university community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”
I don’t think I should have to belabor this, since it is self-evidently wrong and dangerous, though strangely typical of much of the Left in 2019, but here are just a few points:
- This is Authentic Frontier Gibberish (AFG)
- I thought Williams was supposed to be an elite liberal arts institution. Why can’t its students express themselves more coherently than that? (“Insurance”?)
- Sloppy expression typically indicates sloppy thinking and poor reasoning skills. An argument this weakly stated suggest a position based on cant and political ideology rather than analysis and critical thought.
- It is impossible to argue or reason with people who think and debate this way. Moreover, their Catch-22 approach precludes argument: if you disagree with them, then you are using “deeply offensive language.” You are also, presumably, showing that you are a racist.
- Attempting to control the ability to debate, argue and dissent indicates a position with advocates who can’t legitimately defend it.
- The United States does not have “free speech absolutism,” and never has. If one is going to argue against the freedom of speech, a minimal requirement is that one should know what it is.
Ethics Alarms 
Free speech will “inevitably imperil marginalized students”? That’s exactly the kind of anti-Constitutional thinking the terrorists want! The terrorists eventually swoop in and give these totalitarian snowflakes exactly what they want, the ability and the tools to silence that which they oppose using open intimidation and outright fear of death.
The terrorists that attacked the United States of America on September 11, 2001 knew from thousands of years of experience that the seeds of fear planted in a population would turn free thinking people against each other and slowly destroy it from within. In a very real way, they were correct.
Start calling censorship hate speech work to silence them and watch their heads explode from confusion.
I don’t feel safe in an environment where I cannot express my ideas out of fear of sanction by the peoplein power.
Brilliant idea. I will try that next.
jvb
I take it, then, that they want to punish pro-gay speech since it offends students.
Nope, because they’re “marginalized” people. Those Christian students who might not like that need to just “sit down and acknowledge their privilege.” I’m beginning to think higher education is almost hopeless.
If we have to suppress freedom of speech to protect the feelings of marginalized people, then that implies that marginalized people are a threat to our freedoms. If marginalized people are a threat to our freedoms, then that implies that they must be exterminated to protect our freedom.
Do these people understand the implications of their arguments?
Nope. They absolutely do not.
jvb
They do not because if you grow up inside the bubble that most major cities in the US have become, you’ve never had anyone intellectually confront any of your ideas. The major media, local politicians, and the education system are all teaching aligned dogma. No one ever faces defending their core values, because any opposing viewpoint is treated as dogma and drowned out.
There was a time, in the history of Western Civilization, when it was widely accepted that it was the duty of the state to enforce a particular religious orthodoxy. That orthodoxy, the reasoning went, was after all nothing more than fidelity to God and all that was good and true. To dissent, it was argued, would promote not only vice, but serious crime, and a collapse of public order as public morality degenerated. To dissent was to apply oneself with the forces of evil and darkness.
Of course any means was justified in the battle to save humanity and all its souls from ultimate evil. Many atrocities were committed using this rationale. But these were not evil people. They believed these things very sincerely, and thought they were acting for the greater good – the greatest good, in fact.
It was a hard-learned lesson that suppression of dissent in the name of public safety is really quite terrible at protecting public safety. It is, however, quite effective for extirpating public liberty. Those who care about either would do well to learn the lessons of history.
Amateurs. “A just end does not justify any means absolutely” was the credo of the real fanatics.
Most people are good and occasionally do something they know is bad.
Some people are bad and struggle every day to keep it under control
Others are corrupt to the core and don’t give a damn, as long as they don’t get caught
But evil is a completely different creature;
evil is bad that believes it’s good.
Karen Marie Moning
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Lewis’ philosophy appeals more than his friend Tolkein, most of the time, even if I’m more agnostic. This is a good summary of the concern, and is firmly on the list of old thinkers who would be horrified at this new century.
Every campus speech code should start with the Preamble:
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
Sadly, the fact that this childhood chant needs to be explained to college students demonstrates the level of remedial learning that is required in some places.
-Jut
I once read the quip (paraphrased through several years of questionable memory) “a high school education used to be a valuable means of securing future success. This is still true, but now one has to go to college to get it.” I fear we’ve progressed since then.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini…ase-regulating-hate-speech-america-ncna832246
So, under this Berlatsky doctrine, civil rights can be infringed if its exercise hurts people’s feelings.
Same-sex marriage hurts people’s feelings. Why not ban same-sex marriage?
What about gay pride parades? Do they not hurt people’s feelings? Why not ban gay pride parades to protect their feelings?
What about shutting down Islamic mosques because they hurt the feelings of terrorism survivors? Or shutting down Catholic churches because they hurt the feelings of sexual abuse survivors?
And, of course, is not public safety a greater interest than protecting people’s feelings?
Why not arbitrary searches and seizures at the whim of the police?
Why not reducing the burden of proof in criminal trials to a preponderance of the evidence?
The question is not what civil rights violations could be justified under the Berlatsky doctrine.
The question is what could not.
Increased blood pressure and stress… you mean it made them mad? So the state must step in and use force to prevent anyone saying anything that makes someone else mad?
So when somebody favorably quotes Schenk‘s famous “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” line, the SWAT team should swoop in to protect Ken White from having a stroke?
What are the stats on blood pressure for the overwhelming majority of people who THINK they’ve been subjected to racism, when in fact they’ve merely been conditioned to erroneously associate every perceived slight as racism?
Like I recently said to this one acquaintance of mine who is in the habit of constantly doing this: “when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
To paraphrase the British Bulldog: “These are people that can’t change their minds and won’t change the subject.”
Why are two of the three people holding that banner wearing masks?
Who know? The graphic is for the banner—that’s not a Williams demonstration.
I was going to defend Williams College but I had to do some research first. I had a vague idea that Williams College was a private, religious (maybe Mennonite or Quaker) college, which would provide some basis for that defense. Sadly, I was mistaken.
Wikipedia states that it is private, liberal arts college with no religious affiliation, founded in 1793, with funds from the Ephraim Williams Estate. Williams was killed in the French and Indian War in 1755. It is located in Williamstown, MA, and has a student body of approximately 2,200 students including undergrads and grad students.
I did note, though, that at its founding, it enforced racial segregation. I wonder of these radicals know that? If so, doesn’t that fact alone disqualify the college as an institution of higher education? I mean, if the idea is that racism (present, historical, or future) presents a violent environment that “prioritizes the protection of ideas over the protection of people . . . giving ‘deeply offensive’ language a platform at this institution, will inevitably imperil marginalized students”, then the school itself should be shuttered and given over to descendants of peoples injured by such priorities. Right?
jvb
GREAT/b> catch, jvb! Now all that needs to be done is run it up the flagpole.
Wait a minute, which one; Palestinian, Mexican, Hezbollah, or Antifa…?
Brilliant, John. I’m forwarding your astute observation to a buddy who’s on the board of trustees of my college which has always considered Williams the college my college has wished it was. With Williams out of the way, Hamilton College will finally be able to BE Williams. Huzzah!
Let me take a stab at this:
“[The proposed campus speech policy] prioritizes the protection of ideas over the protection of people and fails to recognize that behind every idea is a person with a particular subjectivity.”
Ideas die at the hands of people who are determined to kill them with censorship, so they require protection. An idea, however racist or offensive, never hurt anyone — only their feelings. So ideas require protection, but as adults, feelings are your problem. Have you never heard of “Sticks and stones…?”
Whatever “particular subjectivity” may be, it is irrelevant to education. When “particular subjectivity” is used to constrain free expression, it is “objective totalitarianism.”
“Our beliefs, and the consequences of our actions, are choices we make. Any claim to the ‘protection of ideas’ that is not founded in the insurance of people’s safety poses a real threat — one which targets most pointedly marginalized people.”
Ideas do not objectively threaten your safety, no matter what your beliefs are. Marginalized people become only more marginalized, not less, when their feelings are allowed to define the parameters of free expression. In effect, their feelings become the oppressor, rather than the oppressed. That’s not consistent with academic freedom or learning.
“An ideology of free speech absolutism that prioritizes ideas over people, giving ‘deeply offensive’ language a platform at this institution, will inevitably imperil marginalized students.”
Ideas don’t imperil anyone. Censorship imperils both academic freedom and the freedom of students to express themselves. Both are required before learning can take place. Students should learn how adults handle offensive speech, rather than trying to hide from it by suppressing the speech of others.
Finally … bugger off, censor. Get a life. Find a clue-by-four and beat yourself with it. Or even better, drag your censorious ass somewhere else, preferably to another country.
Nicely done. I would add that ideas don’t threaten anyone and should never be punished or censored. Actions taken may threaten or harm but that is different. It is the main reason hate crime laws are inherently unfair and unjust.
jvb
Agreed.
A propos of absolutely nothing to this post, the second murder of James Byrd, Jr., a man tied to the back of a truck and dragged to his death for the crime of being black, is scheduled to be executed this afternoon. His name is John William King and has never apologized or repented for what he did. No last minute appeals, no last minute pleas to the governor. The only group I found trying to stop is Catholic Mobilizing Network. Here is their website: https://catholicsmobilizing.org/ As horrible, unrepentant, evil as this man is, if the opponents of the death penalty truly believe the death penalty is morally wrong, they should be trying to stop it. But, they are not.
jvb
Wait a minute. I lied. There is a last minute appeal to SCOTUS, seeking to stay the execution. I was not aware of it. It seems that there is a question of whether King’s lawyer properly pleaded guilty to the charges to focus on a mitigation defense. There is little likelihood SCOTUS will stay the execution.
I apologize for the misinformation. Here is a twitter link to Robert Dunham. He seems to be the executive director of an organization opposed to the death penalty. https://twitter.com/RDunhamDPIC
jvb
But Texas didn’t need to call it a “hate crime” to justify executing the bastard. I’m pretty sure anytime anyone is dragged behind a truck alive by the neck until his head pops off, it s a murder grounded in hate even if the killer and victim are father and son.
That is only because Texas didn’t have hate-crime legislation at the time. Hate-crime enhancementsbl didn’t go into effect until later.
During Bush’s run for reelection as governor, he was asked why he opposed hate-crime laws in light of the Byrd case. He asked how hate-crime enhancements would have changed the outcomes of the case. Two were condemned to death and 1 us in prison for life. Social activists went nuts. Rick Perry later signed it into law.
You are mistaken. The late Earl of Arran related a story with pretty much that plot, called “the lady whose turn it was to drive”, that had happened during the Irish troubles. That time, the motives were in part to do a job of work, and in part a sort of amusement at the irony of making the passenger drag her erstwhile driver like that.
Look, I know that culture, only partly at second hand: that sort of thing is just how it’s done. It’s casual and indifferent brutality, not hatred, at any rate at the point of application. Someone I know once threatened to break a young lady’s fingers if a stolen bottle of brandy wasn’t returned, but that was just as a means to an end.
An ideology of free speech absolutism that prioritizes ideas over people, giving ‘deeply offensive’ language a platform at this institution, will inevitably imperil marginalized students.”
This is one of my least favorite excuses from the church of wokeness because it presumes to know just who is marginalized and how such persons interpret words & phrases. In essence the argument is “those marginalized people can’t understand nuances of opinion and everyone not fawning over their intersectional unicorn specialness, so let’s make sure to advocate for them because they can’t discern for themselves what’s offensive.”
For me the real racism has never been about white folks thinking one way or another about my skin tone or race(s). It’s always been the well-meaning utopians who want me to be their poster child for how awesome they are to be my “ally.” Peter nailed it when he said “through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you (2 Peter 2:3)…” as that is exactly what this sort of woke bigotry is…turning supposed downtrodden folks into mascots and products for other ends. Those ends are often wrapped up in warped ideas of how they think things should be, not what they are.
People of color, gays, women, trans folks, immigrants (legal & illegal), etc. have become nothing more than excuses for outright attempts at controlling minds in order to usher in a reality that will never come to pass. Worse is the rhetoric of social justice actually has a more detrimental effect on minorities because all you hear is the following:
-If you’re black you’ll likely end up in jail or poor or both.
-If you’re gay, conservatives and Christians hate you and you’ll be a depressed alcoholic.
-If you’re a biological woman, predatory men are around every corner and you’ll end up abused or raped.
-If you have gender confusion, you will commit suicide unless you get surgery & everyone affirms it, otherwise you’ll still kill yourself.
-If you’re Muslim you’ll be labeled a terrorist and probably become one because of it.
-If you’re Asian…well you get nothing unless you’re poor or an immigrant.
-If you’re Jewish…see above for the Asians unless a white supremacist doesn’t like you (but ignore BDS please)
-If you’re disabled you’ll be shunned & become homeless.
These are big lies repeated to the point where some minorities actually end up believing this crap. Why bother being black or female or disabled and trying to succeed since the woke tell you there’s only a tiny chance you might. Why bother befriending conservatives or men or whites or cisgender or those who may disagree with your sense of oppression because they hate you and want you to fail.
It’s not the average American who causes high blood pressure for certain minorities – it’s those who believe themselves non-bigoted and constantly use minorities to their own ends that causes the stress. It’s exhausting to fight against such politically correct low expectations. At some point, like so many have done and will do, The Marginalized™ have to say “I’m not your social justice unicorn & can handle different opinions without your help.” Because this version of “helping” simply isn’t. It’s creating more victims and more fodder for those who profit politically and financially from it. As I have mentioned to other people of color, a lot of SJW’s are making money off minority misery. Author Tammy Bruce calls them misery merchants for good reason.
The only “protection” these students and their complicit professors are supplying is that of a mafia – whose goal is to keep certain people in ideological chains while cornering the market on fake righteousness for gain.
Exactly.
jvb
Nicely said, I ‘qualify’ as a minority in their books, but I don’t want their organized pity, I just want a chance to make my own mark. Even if it seems so slow to do it the better way.
Wow! This is such a perfectly-executed indictment of the victim-worshippers. My vote for COTD!
Yes, just about every Comment Mrs. Q enters is a COTD.
I know someone who taught at Williams for a short period of time. They found out quickly that you can’t exist there without Ivy League credentials. The faculty, students, even the staff look down on you if you only have top public school credentials. The students put their expensive prep-school educations above the best non-Ivy Ph.D.’s in the country. These students have been severely protected and had their self-importance pumped to the skies their entire lives.
Oh. Marginalizing the alleged marginalizers, are they? Wow, that’ll get us somewhere.
Heh.
Blood in the streets is their destination, by design.