New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | August 5, 2004

Cathy Young says political correctness has risen from the grave.

Comments

|8.5.04 @ 2:25AM|#

Heh. I have a BA from Oregon State. We always called it The Daily Barfometer or The Anal Thermometer.

|8.5.04 @ 2:27AM|#

Your comment shows a disturbing lack of sensitivity toward the scourge of anal barfing.

|8.5.04 @ 2:35AM|#

I e-mailed an editor to ask him if what is stated here is a true characterization of the events at OSU.

His article on the affair can be seen here:

http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/21/4086afa617d04?in_archive=1

|8.5.04 @ 3:25AM|#

Why is it that the left exhibits more fascistic behavior than the right can even think to conjure up. I thought the liberal left wanted to be seen as warm, kind, and fuzzy?

|8.5.04 @ 3:51AM|#

B.D.,
Yah. Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were all warm-fuzzy left-wing types.

|8.5.04 @ 3:59AM|#

Behavior or speech that "unreasonably interferes with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin," or even of those of no particular race, color, etc., SHOULD be forbidden by colleges' code of conduct. Why should somebody be allowed to "unreasonably interfere with the work or academic performance" of his classmates? Does the inclusion of a racial/ethnic/gender element make the "unreasonable interference with the work or academic performance" of other people somehow make it beyond the proper reach of school officials?

Between citing this as the first, best illustration of what she considers unacceptable, and by criticizing UMass's paper based on speculation about the administration's motivations in, um, holding fast against censorship, Young doesn't exactly come across a beacon of reason or credibility.

|8.5.04 @ 4:05AM|#

Joe,

The point is: *who* gets to define "unreasonable interference"?

Maybe in JoeLand that kind of discretion is made by wise, all-knowing, caring-but-impartial administrators. In notJoeLand, the people who make the calls as to what's "unreasonable" are, for the most part, doing so as to stifle dissent. Period.

|8.5.04 @ 4:22AM|#

"The point is: *who* gets to define "unreasonable interference"?"

The people to whom you are paying $25,000 per year per student to operate the university. They should also get to define which noises are too loud after 11:00, which applicants should be allowed to attend, where the benches should be located on the quad, how many courses in what combination get you what degree, and sundry other judgement calls.

|8.5.04 @ 4:26AM|#

"In notJoeLand..." Oh yes, I've heard of this, it's sometimes called "reality". You know, where most of us live.

joe, haven't you caught on by now that selectively quoting, taking minor points out of context, and blowing them up while ignoring the major points of an article don't cut the mustard, even for H&R comments?

I'd say I expected better...oh f*ck it.

|8.5.04 @ 4:27AM|#

Joe,

You missed the point. I bloody well know who are making the judgement: my point is that there's no question that these calls are being made by subjective, extremely biased persons to further an overt agenda. Specifically, to stifle debate and quash dissent.

|8.5.04 @ 4:49AM|#

Todd, let's work out a code. When I want to know what you think about my argumentation techniques, I'll type a series of asterisks and dashes, like this:

*-*-*-*

Watch for it in future threads.

|8.5.04 @ 4:49AM|#

"The point is: *who* gets to define "unreasonable interference"?"

The people to whom you are paying $25,000 per year per student to operate the university.


So as the customer paying $25,000, I get to forfeit the ability to define "unreasonable interference?" Sounds like a bad deal to me.

|8.5.04 @ 4:53AM|#

"there's no question that these calls are being made by subjective, extremely biased persons to further an overt agenda. Specifically, to stifle debate and quash dissent."

Any authority can be abuses. Do we forbid cops from making arrests because they might grab up the wrong people? Did we disband the army after Mai Lai? If somebody is "unreasonably interfer(ing) with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin," at a university, the administrators of that university have a responsibility to restore an atmosphere where students and professors can pursue their academic work.

|8.5.04 @ 4:53AM|#

"there's no question that these calls are being made by subjective, extremely biased persons to further an overt agenda. Specifically, to stifle debate and quash dissent."

Any authority can be abuses. Do we forbid cops from making arrests because they might grab up the wrong people? Did we disband the army after Mai Lai? If somebody is "unreasonably interfer(ing) with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin," at a university, the administrators of that university have a responsibility to restore an atmosphere where students and professors can pursue their academic work.

|8.5.04 @ 4:55AM|#

joe,

The judgement calls you mention are for the most administrative bureaucratic decisions that are necessary for efficient function of the school but generally don't stir any real controversy. They're totally different from judgements about the acceptability of political speech and discussion of controversial ideas.
I'm sure OSU pays the same lip service that just about every other university does to the importance of the free exchange of ideas in order to create an intellectually stimulating environment, etc. If that goal really is given high priority, some students and faculty will just have to deal with the discomfort or anger they may feel regarding others' views. It's hard to discuss the OSU situation in detail because the article doesn't give any examples of what has been considered harassment under this policy, but it seems painfully obvious that a harassment policy using such nebulous phrases as "hostile environment," "unreasonably interferes with work," and "justifiable academic standards" has the potential to be abused (or at least applied in a way that is completely antithetical to notions of intellectual freedom that most universities claim to value so highly). Certainly the other examples Young gives from other schools are completely inconsistent with this ideal.

|8.5.04 @ 4:58AM|#

Joe,

Nice straw man. Cops and the military both operate on a strictly-defined code of conduct. "Unreasonable interference" is nothing but a couple of weasel words set up so that they can be interpreted however the censor (sorry, I meant "administrator") sees fit.

Hmmm...I could say that you are "unreasonably interfering" with my ability to earn a living, because I'm spending my time disagreeing with you ;)

|8.5.04 @ 5:02AM|#

notJoe, do you recommend disbanding a police department every time there is a case of misconduct? Should we repeal the laws against murder, because there have been false convictions?

When somebody "unreasonably interferes with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin," the university needs to step in and make sure that students and teachers are allowed to continue their academic work. For $25,000/year, they have a responsibility to deliver on the promises they make about the service they provide. Making sure students are allowed to go about their work is an affirmative duty of the institution.

|8.5.04 @ 5:03AM|#

People ought to read the URL I posted above; things aren't quite as horrible at OSU as some appear to be implying. If they were one wonders how the particular article I pointed everyone got through the "filters."

Here is the URL again: http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/21/4086afa617d04?in_archive=1

|8.5.04 @ 5:05AM|#

I maybe wasn't totally clear - the problem is words like unreasonable, hostile, and justifiable are very vague and open to interpretation. If a religous conservative student is in a tizzy over a parody of Passion, or a liberal has a hissy-fit over David Horowitz' visit to campus, is that hostile or unreasonable? Is the shit that comes out of Coulter's mouth justifiable in the name of intellectual diversity?
In an intellectual environment universities strive for, students need to learn to pursue their academic work even if they're pissed off, uncomfortable, etc. Diversity of ideas expressed should trump anyone's personal discomfort, certainly to the extent that someone could reasonably feel discomfort at the examples Young gives in her article.

|8.5.04 @ 5:13AM|#

"The point is: *who* gets to define "unreasonable interference"?"

The people to whom you are paying $25,000 per year per student to operate the university

This *is* the same "joe" who bitches and moans about each and every new security measure, attempt at censorship, or law put forth by the Bush Administration, right?

It's not an imposter?

So I guess it turns out that censorship and arbitrary exercise of power are good things after all, so long as the person with the power has the right politics.

|8.5.04 @ 5:15AM|#

People who get bent out of shape (to the point of suppressing) reading the stuff in newspapers are looking for excuses to get bent out of shape. These people are what are commonly called ASSHOLES.

|8.5.04 @ 5:26AM|#

Ok joe, we'll leave aside your 'techniques'.

So why don't you directly address the examples in the article and defend them? I mean instead of focusing legalistically on some fine point.

Does it really sound to you like David Williams was fairly treated? Does it sound like an article that deserved protests and firings? How about the example of the Thanksgiving Day cartoon? Reasonable action on the part of the college?

If you support this kind of thing, come out and say it. If not, then the fine points you are debating don't seem to amount to much.

|8.5.04 @ 5:59AM|#

Thank goodness for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). After a few good lawsuits in which the censorious administrators are humililated and made to pay for their outrages, we might see some improvement in this mess. This isn't a matter for arguments with the likes of Joe. That's pointless. This is a matter for the use of the next best thing to force..namely lawsuits. Where can we contribute to FIRE?

|8.5.04 @ 6:10AM|#

My God, joe, tell me you're kidding.

You're imagining a world in which the power to censor otherwise protected student speech is something that college administrators should enjoy, though they might occassionally abuse it. We shouldn't object to speech codes any more than we should object to laws against murder, because the cops sometimes screw up, too.

Did I miss something?

|8.5.04 @ 6:14AM|#

Also, joe, you might want to look at the ways speech codes are actually implemented, rather than the text of the code. Of course, we can agree that no one should "unreasonably interfere" with anyone else's education. But when constitutionally protected speech is defined as "interference," we've got a problem.

|8.5.04 @ 6:14AM|#

Also, joe, you might want to look at the ways speech codes are actually implemented, rather than the text of the code. Of course, we can agree that no one should "unreasonably interfere" with anyone else's education. But when constitutionally protected speech is defined as "interference," we've got a problem.

|8.5.04 @ 6:31AM|#

Disagreement with the political or religious views of *anyone* is most definitely NOT 'unreasonable interference with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin'.

Being offended by someone's expression is also not unreasonable interference.

Unreasonable interference is physical force or the credible threat of physical force. PERIOD.

If you're that easily offended, you should probably wrap yourself in a blanky and hide in your bedroom, because you have MUCH bigger problems than whatever it is that someone said to you.

|8.5.04 @ 6:34AM|#

I'm sure that lots of these censorship incidents stem from causes internal to the particular college. However, let's keep in mind that the federal government provides incentives for colleges to suppress certain kinds of speech.

In an analagous (sp?) area, Eugene Volokh gives examples of how the federal "civil-rights" laws encourage employers to suppress supposedly racist or sexist speech, because if they don't they risk being forced to pay damages for tolerating a "hostile environment." See

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/

In a similar manner, federal civil rights laws threaten colleges with penalties if they tolerate a "hostile environment" toward students of particular races or sexes. Colleges therefore have an incentive to minimize their liability risks by suppressing the sort of speech that contributes (according to federal courts) to a "hostile environment."

The federal government constantly issues assurances that no college is required to suppress speech protected by the First Amendment. The fact remains, however, that the more speech a college tolerates, the greater the risk of getting sued.

|8.5.04 @ 9:41AM|#

OK, so far, I'm convinced that the people controlling the The Daily Barometer have little regard for the 1st Amendment and those at The Daily Collegian do. The Barometer folks definitely need a remedial course in the meaning and importance of freedom.

But I need a little more evidence than two unrelated anecdotes to convince me that PCness is killing free speech.

|8.6.04 @ 1:02AM|#

joe-

I agree 100% that unreasonably interfering with another student's academic pursuits should be against school rules.

That isn't the issue, however.

Nor is the issue one of who gets to decide.

Whatever the phrasing of these rules, the end result at many schools is an attempt to squash anything that offends certain groups. THAT is the issue.

Now, I should also say that, as somebody who got a Bachelors from one large West Coast university and is on the verge of getting his Ph.D from another, I don't think campuses are nearly as oppressive as some of the horror stories might lead one to believe. The day-to-day life of most students is not a story of a Stalinesque gulag. In grad school, I ran into some politically correct bullshit during TA training, but after 40 hours of indoctrination I was able to go about the mundane business of a TA: pulling teeth to get freshmen to actually study and turn in homework on time. (This task actually taught me to appreciate the diversity of excuses that students of all creeds, colors, and sexual orientations will try to bullshit me with. I am now truly open-minded, for I see that stupidity and irresponsibility are universal traits that cut across every demographic divide.)

Still, there's no denying that the horror stories (or at least the ones that aren't exaggerated) point to a situation where administrators are trying to protect the "right to not be offended by anything."

Morat|8.6.04 @ 1:19AM|#

Let's boil this down: College kids are idiots. Especially the politacally active ones.

They're all, to use a nasty word, "fucktards". They're fucktards all through college. It occupies their spare time between classes and drunken binges. In fact, the whole point of college is -- through a program of intense education and bad sex -- designed to turn fucktards into low-functioning adults.

During this "fucktard" stage, they do a lot of stupid shit. Now, sometimes in trying to deal with the fucktards, the University does even stupider shit (and the University, being theoretically full of people who aren't fucktards, has no excuse).

When the University does something stupid, it should be beaten about the head and shoulders until it stops.

On the other hand, when the people complaining the University is doing something stupid are fucktards, one should utilize a wheelbarrow or two of salt.

In short: If the people complaining are college students, especially politically active ones, they're probably making mountains out of molehills. Check it out, because you don't want to miss the real problems, but for God's sake....don't take the fucktards at their word.

They're idiots. Some of then need 10 or 12 years of college to stop being idiots. Some are always idiots (some even run for President!).

|8.6.04 @ 4:57AM|#

"I just don't see why you need a speech code to prevent that interference. Any physical assault is already banned. Any non-protected speech (threats, etc) are already banned. What conduct could a speech code legitimately ban?"

Responding to your Jewish roommate's requests that you turn down the stereo while he's studying by hanging a Nazi banner on the wall across from his desk.

100% protected by the First Amendment.

100% intolerable for a university campus.

foobie|8.6.04 @ 6:39AM|#

joe,

He can get another roommate. For 2 reasons. First, restricting freedom of speech, however offensive, is still ethically wrong, even on a college campus.
Second, if he has that kind of an asshat for a roommate, it's not going to be a good living situation, banner or not. And I assure you that all of the rules of behaviour set up in the university will have no meaningful effect on those kinds of situations.

|8.6.04 @ 9:24AM|#

Damn straight he can get another room mate. They can assign him one after they kick the prick out of the dorms and put his ass on probation. Why should the kid be driven out of his room?

Getting that asshat of the dorm, possibly out of the school, would not set back academic pursuits and political dialogue, but advance them.

foobie|8.6.04 @ 9:58AM|#

As long as the asshat is only offensive, I wouldn't argue for kicking him out, as long as he's otherwise doing what he should on campus (going to class, paying fees, getting a passing grade). Kicking him out, in and of itself, will do nothing to advance dialogue, and would arguably do much to suppress dialogue.

Besides, my point was that the asshat be moved into more amenable surroundings, not the other student, but in either event, some kind of compatibility would need to be met for a roommate, and it could be done without silencing offensive speech.

But the thing is, as long as it is only offensive speech, the only legitimate action would be to change the roommate situation, not to suppress the speech.

|8.6.04 @ 10:00AM|#

Actually, Dan, I tend to stay away from the "free speech zones" and Patriot Act threads. You must have me confused with someone else.

J and NotJoe and thoreau, your complaints seems to be about the application of the rule, or rather, what you assume will be the application of the rule. Perhaps it will be abused, and if so, it would be good to decry that abuse. But that doesn't change the fact that the rule itself makes perfect sense, and states exactly what a university is supposed to do - provide a forum in which scholars can go about their academic work.

Todd, I addressed the "fine points" because that is what I took exception to. Some of the other incidents Young mentioned, if they actually occurred in the way she describes, deserve the denunciation she gave to them.

steve, I agree that denunciations should be about abuses of the rule, if indeed it is abused. Because the text, by itself, is perfectly legitimate - and I'd like to point out that it is the text that Young pointed to, first in her piece, as the problem.

Your fear, justified or not, of possible abuse has led you the position where you are arguing that there should be no rule preventing people from "unreasonably interferes with the work or academic performance of those of a particular race, color, ethnicity or national origin." That can't be how you really feel.

Baby -> Bathwater

|8.6.04 @ 11:20AM|#

thoreau, I've got my own horror stories. A group at my college founded the Politically Incorrect Students Society (PISS, get it?) One of them set up a famous photo of himself standing next to a statue of George Washington, with a gag over George's mouth that read "PC." They were forever whining about being oppressed for their conservative politics - you know, "That bitch gave me a C, and it's just cuz I'm a conservative."

That year, their big issue was their opposition to the fact that the gay and lesbian student group received exactly the same funding as every other student social group. They weren't complaining that people were being discriminated against for their political and religious views; they were complaining that people WEREN'T being discriminated against for their political and religous views.

So I need a little more evidence to support tearing a perferctly reasonable-sounding rule about letting your fellow students go about their business, than people talking about their feelings and pointing to unrelated events.

|8.6.04 @ 11:51AM|#

joe,

Did PISS do anything you think the university should have banned, or punished them for?

Obviously, I don't think that it should be OK to interefe with another student's education. I just don't see why you need a speech code to prevent that interference. Any physical assault is already banned. Any non-protected speech (threats, etc) are already banned. What conduct could a speech code legitimately ban?

|8.6.04 @ 12:03PM|#

joe,
There are certainly legitimate uses for the rule as it is written, but its so broad that there's a ton of room for abuse. I agree that a top goal of universities is to "provide a forum in which scholars can go about their academic work" (understood fairly broadly to include not strictly academic intellectual pursuits like the student newspaper and various campus groups); but that work might lead some scholars to questions or conclusions that others find offensive enough that they could legitimately claim some recourse through this rule.

As I mentioned earlier, it's hard to speak in detail about Oklahoma State specifically, because I don't have any idea how it's been applied (presumably not much, or Young would have mentioned it). But Young mentions some things at other schools (the editorial about "the African American community," the "Passion" parody, the prof's anti-war comments) which should be completely allowable in an intellectual environment universities should be cultivating, but which could easily be interpreted as violations of a rule as vague as OSU's.

I guess the upshot is I think it makes a lot more sense to start out by writing the rule more narrowly than it does to write it so broadly and then later complain about the abuses that are (I think) likely to happen.

|8.6.04 @ 12:47PM|#

"Did PISS do anything you think the university should have banned, or punished them for?" They stuck stuff under dorm room doors, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

J, I think your narrowly-drawn criticism makes sense, and is much reasonable than Young's blanket outrage.

|8.7.04 @ 11:45AM|#

joe,

People do not lose their First Amendment rights as they enter universities. To punish someone solely for hanging a banner is to deny them these rights. Asshat pricks have First Amendment rights no less than anyone else.

Lets consider two other situations as well; a Black roommate where the asshat hangs a Klan poster. And, a Palestinian roommate where the asshat hangs a "Ski Israel" poster that shows Sharon skiing on sand using two Palestinians for skis. (years ago I saw one like this but it was Menachem Begin doing the skiing and "buy Palestine skis" written in a corner of the poster)

Would you mete out the same punishment for these other two situations as well?

What about if there were no Jewish, Black or Palestinian roommate involved? Would you still punish for putting up the offensive material. I certainly hope not.

The more I think about this, the more it seems that the chilling effect that it would have on free discussion would do general harm. The main victim in these punishment scenarios is the asshat and his/her rights though.

Also, you're assuming that the Jewish, Black or Palestinian student would want the asshat dealt with in this way. In this situation, one approach to fighting race baiting in to get the asshat student to understand the errors of his/her ways.
The best solution to what we consider bad speech is often more speech. Of course, this can be done while roommates are switched.

The stifling of free speech is a hideous lesson to teach students.

|8.8.04 @ 3:32AM|#

You know, it's not really the faculty or adminstration that defines "unreasonable interference". It's the person who believes that his work has been "unreasonably" interfered with. I doubt there would be much second-guessing of such assertions, especially if made by members of protected and/or favored classes. In other words, we're talking about the heckler's veto, where any individual who wants to shut down speech he doesn't like can do so. That's a bad idea in the "real" world, but it's a terrible idea in academia.

How about we just stiffen the upper lip and act a little more stoical when we hear things that offend us? Or maybe, I don't know, respond with more speech? I guess the marketplace of ideas is too capitalistic for academia these days. Professor Volokh is correct to point out that harassment laws and policies are all too often in complete opposition to free speech. Which is a far more important right than the "right" of not being offended.

My law school had a policy against "unwanted leering". I'm not entirely sure what "wanted leering" would look like, not to mention the "unwanted" variety, but I always thought that was some plot to prevent lawyers from interbreeding. Fair enough, I suppose.