Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Barry Outside 'Free Speech Zone'; Philosopher Offended
Just when you the water-buffalo-as-racial-epithet and "campus free speech zones" days were over, comes this absurd story from FIRE . Apparently, Marquette University finds Dave Barry's libertarianism "offensive":
That’s right: Even all-American humorist Dave Barry is subject to censorship on our nation’s college campuses, as Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler found out last fall.Ditsler didn’t think he was doing anything objectionable by posting a Dave Barry quote on his office door last October—but James South, the head of Marquette’s philosophy department, thought differently.The Barry quote posted by Ditsler read, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”Within days, South deemed the quote “patently offensive” and removed it from Ditsler’s office door, stating that “while I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not ‘free-speech zones.’” (Ironically, campus censors love to preface their censorship with a declaration of their commitment to free expression.)
|6.12.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Although IRL he's a real funny guy.
And actually played in a band with that guy who was pinned under a
rock and knifed his own arm off...one of the sorriest moments of my
life was the day I missed that.
|6.12.07 @ 10:55AM|#
This is kinda old news, isn't it? I thought I read about this a few months ago.
Grotius|6.12.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Chicklehead,
Yeah, I thought this has been blogged here a number of times.
|6.12.07 @ 10:59AM|#
What does this have to do with Free Speech? Doesn't Marquette
University have a right to dictate what kind of speech is allowed
on its property?
Mr. Distler needs to buy some private land, then he can post his
Dave Barry quote.
VM|6.12.07 @ 10:59AM|#
"while I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not 'free-speech zones.'" (Ironically, campus censors love to preface their censorship with a declaration of their commitment to free expression.)
And it means a shot and bier chaser, per the DRINKING GAME
rulez.
*strikes jaunty pose
|6.12.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I want to deport anyone who is offended by the idea that the
federal government is our common enemy. That should be the litmus
test of citizenship--"Do you trust, respect, and love the
government? Yes? I'm sorry, you're not an American. Please board
this ship."
This is an academic freedom case, not a free speech one, since (I'm
pretty sure) Marquette is a private university. That doesn't change
the asininity of the situation, of course. Preaching love for
terror must be protected; suggestions that the government is bad
must be stopped.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:05AM|#
This is wrong, and I would not want to see something like that
happen in my department. Still, it smells weird, and I have to
wonder if there's a bit more to this story. Not that it would
justify it, but it would certainly explain it.
First, I wouldn't assume that the department chair did this on his
own initiative. He could have, but it's also possible that somebody
else complained, and used some loaded words like "hostile work
environment" or whatever. Those words sound awfully close to
legalese (at least to the ears of a non-lawyer) and carry all sorts
of implications, and so I can see a department chair deciding to
pacify the squeaky wheel.
Doesn't make it right, but it would at least make a bit more
sense.
Or maybe the guy did more than just post it. Maybe he made a point
of pointing it out to people and trying to start arguments.
Still wouldn't make it right to tear it down, but at least it would
be less crazy.
I'm not writing any of this to justify anything, but I find that
crazy situations often have a bit of backstory to them, and the bad
decisions that come out are often somebody's very crude (and bad)
attempt to resolve a mess. Doesn't mean that they should have
resolved it the way they did, doesn't mean I'm going to defend it.
But it does mean that there's probably some juicy gossip behind all
this.
In other words, I want the juicy gossip behind the story.
|6.12.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Out of context and in ignorance of Dave Barry being a humorist, I could imagine how the quote could be construed as an incitement to violence. Aside from that, it is a property rights issue with a twist of academic hypocrisy thrown in for flavor, not a free speech issue.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Rimfax-
Agreed, the University should have the right to do this.
But I would say that they made a bad judgement call on the exercise
of their property rights, since the goal of a University should be
to have an environment where ideas can be debated openly.
My guess is there's some backstory here. Doesn't mean that the
right judgement call was made, but I'll bet the story is much
juicier than just "Department chair sees sign that he doesn't like,
decides to pick fight, ignite controversy."
VM|6.12.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Doktor T:
thank you for bringing up that distinction. It is very important,
and it seems to get lost, oftentimes.
That would be a good disclaimer (along with the "Agree with MikeP"
one.).
You know, for a physicist, you're not as evil as others. Or are
you? [evil laughter]
*starts building statue to Doktor T
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Looking at the thread that MP linked to, it appears that the
department chair got complaints.
I'll bet that either the student went out of his way to antagonize
people, and created an incident that the chair handled poorly, or
else some crank put a ton of pressure on the chair, and the chair
decided to handle the situation in a cowardly manner rather than
telling the squeaky wheel to save it for something more important
than signs on doors.
|6.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Boy, how quickly we abandon the free market in situations like this. Other schools should simply advertise that students can post any Dave Barry quotes they like on the doors and the situation will take care of itself.
|6.12.07 @ 11:23AM|#
"Ancient history."
So it is. It was reported in the New York Post yesterday, so I will
defer blame to Rupert Murdoch (or to myself for trusting the Post
to be up to date).
|6.12.07 @ 11:23AM|#
From what FIRE's other articles on this say, it sounds like
posting materials like that (with, of course, different content)
was the status quo in the Philosophy department. This looks like it
has much more to do with what was being said than anything
else.
Academic freedom for some! Free cookies for others!
|6.12.07 @ 11:26AM|#
thoreau,
I think you're probably right that there's some sort of back-story.
My guess is it goes something like this; The University wants the
government to deliver a big steaming pile of cash. The student is
against the wholly corrupt cash grab. The department thinks the
punk might actually threaten their chances of getting their mitts
on the filthy lucre. Naturally I'm talking out my ass here, but if
I'm right that just makes South an even bigger asshat.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:26AM|#
This looks like it has much more to do with what was being
said than anything else.
I can't be sure on this, but I think you're leaving out some
variables:
1) Who said it.
2) What else he said.
3) Whom he said it to, and how.
4) What somebody else said to the chair.
5) Status of the complainer(s) in department politics.
The fact that the student went to FIRE also makes me suspicious.
Some of these "academia censored me because they're lefty"
complaints turn out to be from people who decided to act like jerks
and then act shocked and surprised when they get a nasty response.
Doesn't mean that the nasty response is the wise one, but there's
usually a bit of backstory.
Then again, it could be that a student got screwed over for doing
nothing wrong.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Warren, I doubt this has anything to do with grants. Students usually have very minimal involvement in grant applications. And grant reviewers could care less what sort of sign a grad student posts on his door. Frequently the grad student offices are in a separate corridor anyway, where an important visitor wouldn't even pass.
steveintheknow|6.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
He definately rubbed someone the wrong way...
1) lover's quarrel
2) The 20 bag he sold was all seed and stems
3) Lost someone's Tupac CD
The possibilities are endless. Only two people really know
what happened that day.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:29AM|#
I know I'm posting a lot in here, but I smell juicy academic gossip, not ideology. Ideology is dull, but gossip is nice and juicy!
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Um, I agree with Dan T.
I think.
I agree with everyone else commenting here, too.
Except Jonathan Hohensee. I like Dave Barry.
And Chuck Berry.
And I liked the movie about Chuck Barris.
|6.12.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Dan T,
Several commenters have stated that the University has the right to
do what it did, and I would agree with that. I don't think the
student has or should have any legal recourse.
However, we also have the right to say that the dept chair is an
asshat who only supports free speech when he agrees with it.
|6.12.07 @ 11:33AM|#
thoreau,
I don't buy it. The guy may be a jerk, but the action of forcing
him to remove something that is patently not offensive is not at
issue. Whatever the mysterious underlying dislike for the guy,
attacking him by insulting the very idea of academic freedom is
sad.
The whole Sami al Arian thing at U.S.F. had nothing to do with him
promoting terrorism. He actually got tossed because he didn't chip
in for the coffee fund.
|6.12.07 @ 11:44AM|#
The chemistry dept. chair had numerous anti-Bush pictures and
editorial 'toons posted on his door when I was still taking classes
a few years ago. No one said anything.
I guess "anti government" is in the eye of the beholder.
|6.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I think thoreau shares the general opinion that the dept chair is an ass. He's just pointing out that his ass-ness is far more complex than it seems at first sight.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 11:52AM|#
I guess my point is that this probably isn't as ideological as some might think, and more about nasty office politics rather than national politics.
KM|6.12.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Turns out I'm in a good position to point out a few things
overlooked in this brouhaha--I had an office just down the hall,
and was in that selfsame philosophy department. Sure it's gossip,
and sure it's old news, but Dr. South and Stuart are both good
guys, and I don't like what may happen to their reputations.
Relevant things overlooked:
1) The office was a shared office. There were three other
individuals who used that office, and who were positioned such that
any of their complaints would have justified removing the
sign.
2) There were complaints. I don't know the identity of the
complainants (though I have my suspicions), and I do doubt that any
of the three who shared that office made a complaint. But we run
into a problem here of what counts as a complaint--whether snide
comments in the hallway were counted as complaints, or whether
someone put something in writing or sat down with Dr. South. I know
none of the officemates did the latter; it wouldn't surprise me if
they did the former and this was misinterpreted.
3) Dr. South met with the executive committee about the issue. This
clearly doesn't justify the action (unknown facts about 1 and 2 are
needed to justify it), but responsibility is shared. South did not
make this decision on his own, and does not deserve all of the
blame.
4) The quotation was unattributed, and posted the week before the
5th anniversary of 9/11. Given the officemates mentioned in (1),
and the fact that they too had to meet students in that office,
these facts make the case more sensitive.
I'm not saying that the action was justified. I don't know whether
it was. And saying that the university had the right to take it
down is, in this case, a legal claim that does not let them off the
moral hook. Do I think Dr. South mangled the issue with the way he
worded the email? Yes. Do I think the content of the quotation was
the only thing at issue, and thus that this is, in fact, strictly a
free speech issue? No. If it were only a free speech issue, the
action would clearly be unjustified and the shitstorm well
deserved. But, knowing them personally, I can say that South and
Ditsler are both well-meaning individuals, both enormously
generous, and neither is likely wholly innocent in this escapade.
Had Ditsler attributed the quotation, I suspect none of this would
have happened. Had South not heard complaints, and not been holding
together sometimes tenuous department politics with his own bare
hands, I suspect none of this would have happened. Was a bad thing
done? We don't know, though it was probably exacerbated by South's
choice of language. And Pro Libertate's 'let's go kick his ass,'
even in jest, is patently uncalled for.
KM|6.12.07 @ 11:58AM|#
One last thing: Ditsler did not, so far as I know, go to FIRE, and does not deserve to be thought a troublemaker for this. As I know it, he related the story to a friend (forwarding the email that got out), who made a blogpost, which was noticed by another blogger, etc., etc., etc., until it was picked up by some smaller media outlets and noticed by FIRE. The story is unfortunate, minor missteps the whole way round as far as I can tell.
VM|6.12.07 @ 12:00PM|#
*whisper to "KM"*
And Pro Libertate's 'let's go kick his ass,' even in jest, is
patently uncalled for.
If that statement is a point about how someone would miss humor in
a statement, because he/she doesn't know the background or context
is well taken.
'cept your complaint won't get it removed.
|6.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
KM,
Oh, for Zeus' sake, it was a joke. Since neither Warren nor I is
prone to violence, I'm not exactly sure how it's so "patently
uncalled for". As far as I'm concerned, Marquette's a private
institution--they can ignore academic freedom all they want.
thoreau|6.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Thanks for clarifying, KM. That makes a lot of sense.
For a rather different (and hilarious!) example of how incidents in
a grad student office can spiral out of control, read this:
http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/12/my_morning_the__1.html
(This person is a friend of a friend of a friend.)
VM|6.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#
ProGLib:
prob'ly an overly-sensitive response on KM's part. Also - since KM
doesn't know the banter that Warren, you, moi, and others have, it
got misinterpreted. Much in the same way Dave Berry's quote
did.
If that overly-sensitive, knee-jerk reaction is in the culture of
the dept, it should come as no surprise that we see this
result.
Plus, it's a fucking big east school. nuff said.
|6.12.07 @ 12:09PM|#
I guess I will admit that I have no idea what is so offensive about the Barry quote that would warrant having it removed. It doesn't even strike me as being meant to be taken seriously.
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 12:14PM|#
KM,
Wanna go kick ProGLib's ass?
I'll hold him down, but first we need to distract VM, cuz he's a
moose and moose are notoriously loyal to wannabe ass-kicking
lawyers, but they're also easily prone to distraction. What we'll
need is something cute and fuzzy but quick. See, VM will want to
stomp it into oblivion, and we need to make it difficult for him to
catch. I've got a vole here. That should do the trick.
You in?
|6.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#
highnumber,
That would violate Urkobold Bylaw 711-3, Amendment C: Thou shalt
not speechify against the family.
thoreau,
Isn't a friend of the friends a euphemism for the mob? Just
asking.
dhex|6.12.07 @ 12:26PM|#
"So it is. It was reported in the New York Post yesterday, so I
will defer blame to Rupert Murdoch (or to myself for trusting the
Post to be up to date)."
trusting the post is generally a mistake.
mr. moynihan, i am dying to ask - are you often mistaken for that
*other* michael moynihan? (i.e. the dude from blood axis)
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 12:31PM|#
ProGLib,
You violated bylaw 813-32C:
"You're not the boss of me! You never let me have any fun! All the
cool kids are doing it. Aw, please! I hate you! I hate you! I hate
you!"
|6.12.07 @ 12:37PM|#
(This person is a friend of a friend of a
friend.)
It looks
like SEK is getting hosed. Maybe it's another case of Academe (and
internet) Gone Wild.
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 12:42PM|#
On second thought, ProGLib, you actually fulfilled 813-32C, so never mind.
|6.12.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I don't know about the free-speech or academic freedom issues,
but what I wonder is just where does a person have to be
intellectually to consider "patently offensive" the claim that the
federal government is the enemy? He wasn't just saying that HE
thought it was offensive, he was saying that it is obviously so to
anyone who gave it any thought. Who thinks that way??
Who exactly does such a comment offend?
D.A. Ridgely|6.12.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Me, too. I say we all go kick KM's ass. He's a philosopher, so
he probably won't put up much of a fight (except, maybe,
conceptually).
[N.B. -- no, not really. Sheesh!]
|6.12.07 @ 1:02PM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
Indeed. Along those lines, I think I'm going to write a novel based
on a character who is a philosopher with Conan the Barbarian-like
ass-kicking powers. So, when he dispatches an enemy, instead of a
one-liner, he'll engage in a 3-4 hour monologue.
In another first, I will publish this novel here at Hit &
Run.
Chapter One. . . .
Nah, I'm just kidding again.
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Well, I thought about kicking lots of different asses, so if you are a philosopher of a certain stripe, I guess you could consider your ass kicked, beeyatch!
D.A. Ridgely|6.12.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Apropos of which, following exhaustive research (read: I Googled Smith's homepage)and analysis (read: I'm thinking about it as I type), I'd say Smith sounds like (1) an okay guy and (2) we better not mess with him -- he's the co-editor of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy and James Bond and Philosophy, so he probably not only knows various chants and spells to turn us all into Phenomenological Werewolves, he's probably got an exploding copy of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, to boot.
|6.12.07 @ 1:13PM|#
If you think about hitting a professor with a tree from the
woods, did it actually happen?
ed,
Manifestly offensive?
|6.12.07 @ 1:20PM|#
My dad is a philosophy professor, and may I just say that I get all the jokes about 3-4 hour monologues at a deeper level than everyone else. Maybe so deep it hurts a little...
|6.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Here's a link to FIRE's collection of articles and letters
relevant to the case:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/726.html
D.A. Ridgely|6.12.07 @ 1:22PM|#
I'd go with "rationally self-evidently offensive," "axiomatically offensive" or the ever popular "a priori offensive," personally, if only because any word including "patent" might draw out He-Whose-Music-Must-Not-Be-Heard.
|6.12.07 @ 1:31PM|#
So trademarkedly offensive is out, too.
How about ontologically offensive? Or, since it appears that the
professor in question didn't want to know about that viewpoint (or,
in any event, was acting in proxy for those who didn't want to
know), how about epistemologically offensive?
Reinmoose,
Sorry about that. Go watch some Philosopher's
Football to take the edge off.
|6.12.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Okay, I've thought about it, and here's why South was justified
in removing the quote - because he's the head of the department and
because an office door (especially a shared one) is a place that
serves as a kind of representation of the department.
So if you saw an unattributed anti-government quote on a door in
the philosophy deparment, you'd have no way of knowing if that
quote represented the views of the entire department or just an
individual. So I think the head of an organization does (usually)
have the authority to determine or at least have a large say in
what kind of messages that organization puts out.
So I get the feeling that if the student had merely posted the
comment on his desk, nobody would have cared because it obviously
would have been his sentiments alone. But posting it in a public
location without attribution makes it unclear exactly who is saying
what.
D.A. Ridgely|6.12.07 @ 1:55PM|#
P.L.,
It's perplexing, isn't it? We don't know if the locution, though
ostensively a normative assertion, was intended to convey some sort
of consequentialist import (e.g., suggesting ass kickings do not
lead to the greatest good for the greatest number) or a Kantian
perspective (perhaps a violation of the categorical imperative
against ass kickings) or perhaps a virtue ethics approach (the ass
kicking proponent would personally fail to flourish), nor do we
know the meta-ethical implications. He could be an emotivist and
thus merely exclaiming "Ass kicking suggestions - Boo!" or a
perhaps prescriptivist ("...and you should go 'Boo!' too").
|6.12.07 @ 2:15PM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
Are you positing that the Arsch Treten is both a noumenon
and a phenomenon? Which begs the fundamental question of whether
Plato envisioned the Form of the ass kicking.
highnumber,
And so shall you have your cookie. Go to the penthouse of River
City and ask the resident of said penthouse for a cookie. Tell 'em
Pro Libertate sent you.
D.A. Ridgely|6.12.07 @ 2:36PM|#
P.L.
It's all right there in the Meano
MEANO: Ah, Socrates, I see you are chastizing this young lad!
SOCRATES: Chastizing? Why nothing could be further from the truth,
Meano. I am facilitating his remembrance of the the forms (Socrates
swings and lands his unshod foot squarely into the boy's backside)
to guide him from ignorance to enlightenment!
SOCRATES: Now, boy, have you ever had this happen to you
before?
BOY: No, sir.
SOCRATES: How, then, would you describe it now? (Delivers another
swift boot to the boy)
BOY: Ouch! You're kicking my ass, sir!
SOCRATES: Am I doing a good job of it?
BOY: Ouch! Ouch! Yes, sir, a .. Ouch! .. very good job!
SOCRATES: Indeed, you have 'remembered' well, boy! So, Meano, you
see? This boy, who has never had his ass kicked before in this
lifetime, understands the ideal ass kicking with only the most
gentle (kicks boy one last time for good measure) prompting.
It's all in the classics, P.L. (Especially if asses were
involved.)
|6.12.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Plato really knows how to explain complex ideas, doesn't he? It's like the young man who looked for an ass kicking and found out, in the end, that his ass had been kicked all along.
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Speaking of ass-kickings, ProGLib, I went to ask for my cookie. She said she didn't have any cookies. I told her she was a dirty liar. She said she was calling building security, so I kicked her ass. You should have heard that little old lady scream. She went down like a bitch. Turns out she wasn't lying. As she lay there whimpering, I ransacked the joint. She did have some nice wine and some beautiful jewelry. Hang on, someone's banging on my door...
|6.12.07 @ 3:00PM|#
highnumber, you fool, I said River City! You just beat up a lady living in Marina City. Steve McQueen would not be pleased.
|6.12.07 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm gonna actually agree with something Dan T. wrote *ducks as
bolt after bolt of lightning pelts the ground around him* : "I
guess I will admit that I have no idea what is so offensive about
the Barry quote that would warrant having it removed. It doesn't
even strike me as being meant to be taken seriously."
Anyone with a sense of humor, even not knowing this was from Dave
Barry, could recognize that this was meant to be humor: the
beginning part of the quote leading you to think they were talking
about some outfit like Communist Russia, with the punch line being
it's about our government.
VM|6.12.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Highnumber has trouble cuz of River City...
That's with a t
That rhymes with t
And that stands for taint.
The ghost of Steve McQueen (not the one in the machine, of course)
will be on by shortly to chomp your taint.
highnumber|6.12.07 @ 4:58PM|#
YOW!
Thank you, sir.
May I have another?
YEEE-OOOOOOOOOWWWW!
Thank you, sir.
May I have another?
What do you mean, NO?!
biologist|6.12.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Dan T.:
I'm so glad you thought about the reason it would be ok or not
AFTER you posted.
Your rationale is still moronic, however.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245