Free Speech Saves Societies
I am a member of my alma mater's email discussion list. While it is mostly populated by sports statistics, it occasionally contains interesting gems for discussion. One such discussion happened just recently when Syracuse University's chancellor refused, in a Fox-style ambush, to badmouth a faculty member who spoke (and blogged) an unpopular opinion.
The Syracuse Chancellor gets paid $600k per year and can not communicate with a reporter in a calm and professional manor. (see link)
What is preventing her from at least saying how she feels about this teacher's offensive, hateful and inappropriate comments??
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=368000&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Talking Points: 5/14
Racism and sexism in the presidential race
Can any recent graduates comment on the state of teacher qualifications and academics at SU.. Some feel that this guy is just the tip of the iceberg...
http://blog.syracuse.com/indepth/2008/05/syracuse_university_chancellor.html#comments
My reply was fairly swift, and firmly on the side of free speech ALWAYS. I got a few private "thank you"'s, but that wasn't really the point. I decided to repost it here since it reminded me a little of the comment I posted on
conflictdswitch'es Sex: The Movie posting.
Well, I am strong supporter of free speech. In most jobs, your speech is restricted when you are acting as an agent of your employer. It is not restricted by the government, but rather by your employer... and your employment contract binds you to those restrictions.
As it regards the University, I would find it troubling that professors would have to operate within those same boundaries. Why? In their role, they are meant to expand our perspectives, help us to think outside the boxes we've lived in previously. If the role of higher education is merely to indoctrinate us into society's will, why not just replace them with video taped recordings sanctioned by the powers that be?
Even if I don't agree with a position someone takes or a belief they hold, I value the exposure to them. In some cases, it results in my adjusting my own beliefs. And even if I conclude that indeed I don't agree with them, I am better aware of other views and opinions of those around me in the world.
In so many ways, "hate speech" reminds me a great deal of the "politically correct" speech movement that was afoot when I attended Syracuse -- though it was a national trend. As I had just come out as a gay man at the time, I can remember a great many shouting matches over PC speech... and even being involved in a few. ;-) I remember people getting so wrapped up in trying not to offend anyone that in many situations they wound up not really being able to properly communicate what they were trying to say!
More recently, I watched horrified as one Whoopi Goldberg got dragged through the mud for her spotlight on the dreaded "N word." The point she raised in her performances on the subject was, I think, quite salient here. You can fight 'til your death to try and restrict what people say. But WHAT they say is merely a reflection of what they BELIEVE and FEEL. The speech is merely an expression of their INTENT. And maybe you can succeed in getting people to filter every last thought before they speak, but you will never change their beliefs and perceptions that way. It is through honest, upfront, and yes sometimes messy DIALOG that we achieve better understanding... and eventually make headway to changing beliefs.
So I find it quite dumbfounding that a UNIVERSITY would ever consider restricting the speech of any student, faculty member, or staff. Yes, the University is a business... but it is a business focused on the development of knowledge, the education of the students, and (by extension) the improvement of our society as a whole. How can we possibly do any of that if we cannot even be honest in our communication and sharing with one another?
I have also read expressions of disdain for some other educational institutions that limit speech or attempt to influence the expression of ideas. They do themselves a disservice in the process. Holding them up as an example for why others should do the same is just expanding on their mistake. My advice is to be the example for what we wish others to be. Maybe they won't pick up the clue phone, but at least then there is a possibility. If we all simply choose an unenlightened path because everyone else is doing it, then where does that lead?
I find I have no problem with what the Chancellor expressed to the reporter in this situation. I am not fully aware of all the details of the other situations I read about in this thread -- like the campus TV station. On the face of this particular situation, though, I would say "bravo!" to the Chancellor.
The Syracuse Chancellor gets paid $600k per year and can not communicate with a reporter in a calm and professional manor. (see link)
What is preventing her from at least saying how she feels about this teacher's offensive, hateful and inappropriate comments??
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=368000&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Talking Points: 5/14
Racism and sexism in the presidential race
Can any recent graduates comment on the state of teacher qualifications and academics at SU.. Some feel that this guy is just the tip of the iceberg...
http://blog.syracuse.com/indepth/2008/05/syracuse_university_chancellor.html#comments
My reply was fairly swift, and firmly on the side of free speech ALWAYS. I got a few private "thank you"'s, but that wasn't really the point. I decided to repost it here since it reminded me a little of the comment I posted on
conflictdswitch'es Sex: The Movie posting.
Well, I am strong supporter of free speech. In most jobs, your speech is restricted when you are acting as an agent of your employer. It is not restricted by the government, but rather by your employer... and your employment contract binds you to those restrictions.
As it regards the University, I would find it troubling that professors would have to operate within those same boundaries. Why? In their role, they are meant to expand our perspectives, help us to think outside the boxes we've lived in previously. If the role of higher education is merely to indoctrinate us into society's will, why not just replace them with video taped recordings sanctioned by the powers that be?
Even if I don't agree with a position someone takes or a belief they hold, I value the exposure to them. In some cases, it results in my adjusting my own beliefs. And even if I conclude that indeed I don't agree with them, I am better aware of other views and opinions of those around me in the world.
In so many ways, "hate speech" reminds me a great deal of the "politically correct" speech movement that was afoot when I attended Syracuse -- though it was a national trend. As I had just come out as a gay man at the time, I can remember a great many shouting matches over PC speech... and even being involved in a few. ;-) I remember people getting so wrapped up in trying not to offend anyone that in many situations they wound up not really being able to properly communicate what they were trying to say!
More recently, I watched horrified as one Whoopi Goldberg got dragged through the mud for her spotlight on the dreaded "N word." The point she raised in her performances on the subject was, I think, quite salient here. You can fight 'til your death to try and restrict what people say. But WHAT they say is merely a reflection of what they BELIEVE and FEEL. The speech is merely an expression of their INTENT. And maybe you can succeed in getting people to filter every last thought before they speak, but you will never change their beliefs and perceptions that way. It is through honest, upfront, and yes sometimes messy DIALOG that we achieve better understanding... and eventually make headway to changing beliefs.
So I find it quite dumbfounding that a UNIVERSITY would ever consider restricting the speech of any student, faculty member, or staff. Yes, the University is a business... but it is a business focused on the development of knowledge, the education of the students, and (by extension) the improvement of our society as a whole. How can we possibly do any of that if we cannot even be honest in our communication and sharing with one another?
I have also read expressions of disdain for some other educational institutions that limit speech or attempt to influence the expression of ideas. They do themselves a disservice in the process. Holding them up as an example for why others should do the same is just expanding on their mistake. My advice is to be the example for what we wish others to be. Maybe they won't pick up the clue phone, but at least then there is a possibility. If we all simply choose an unenlightened path because everyone else is doing it, then where does that lead?
I find I have no problem with what the Chancellor expressed to the reporter in this situation. I am not fully aware of all the details of the other situations I read about in this thread -- like the campus TV station. On the face of this particular situation, though, I would say "bravo!" to the Chancellor.