Policing or Protecting Thought May 3, 2007
In an evening that will go down in history, Dave, Mike, and I talked endlessly about crap that happened at Ursinus regarding hate speech. In the simplest of re-enactments of said discussion, Dave was a proponent of a quasi-slippery slope argument (you can’t punish people for what they think, plus does it really matter? Also, re: speech, who cares what people say?), while Mike and I argued that hate speech could lead to hate-induced actions, and at the very least creates a hostile environment. I was far too close to this, with students feeling threatened and such, and wasn’t coherent, in many ways.
I’ve thought about that night a lot, and thought about both sides of the hate thought/speech issue, especially of late, what with what I mention below, but also with what the House passed today (with Barney calling out the votes) and what Bush has promised he’ll veto.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Andrew Sullivan provides a tidy description of the two sides to this issue. I have to say that, when push comes to shove, I’m in the second coherent camp. I recognize the argument about free speech, a particularly relevant concern on a college campus dedicated to engaging with issues in an arena where all opinions can be expressed and then rationally engaged with. I also recognize that it is indeed impossible to see inside the souls of men, and that therefore hate crimes legislation is imperfect at best, Big Brother-like at worst. However, on count one, I don’t see how an eighteen-year-old can engage in thoughtful discourse after his friend’s door had names scrawled on it. And, I would hope that most hate crimes are judged by hard evidence–that is, what a person says or does that evinces hatred–and not guesses at inclination.
I don’t know. It’s not perfect, but I’m still convinced that language has power, good and evil 
An aside: tonight’s Ugly Betty featured a plot where all of the secretaries (or, as Betty kept reminding people, “administrative professionals”) celebrated their day at “The Middle Ages,” a “Medieval Times” knock-off. As the fabulous Marc and Amanda enter the place, so too does the evil straight guy Nick (assistant to trans Alexis, of course). Nick says loudly, “this place is so gay”; without missing a beat, Marc says, “it so isn’t.” It’s another example of how this show is so smart about anti-gay behavior and words–defusing them with wit and support from others. Unfortunately, life isn’t scripted by fun writers and doesn’t have happy endings all the time.
I dunno.
I think—though, as drink was involved, I may be wrong—my overall point was that not everything awful is or ought to be criminal, too.
You have bigots on your campus. That’s just a fact. And there are three approaches to that as a problem: (1) criminalize the expression of their views; (2) work to build a campus culture in which bigots are aware that they’re out of step and aware that they would face informal social sanctions for expressing their views in certain ways; and (3) have the confidence of your convictions and engage your bigots, doing what you can to change their views—the ultimate goal being a bigot-free campus.
The first approach amounts to the easy way out: an outside legal intervention drives your bigots underground and/or more or less severely punishes the expression of (but does not change) their views. The best you can hope for, then, is to be able to ignore your problem. If the approach works as intended, not ever hearing from your bigots, you’ll be able to ignore them or even to forget they’re there/pretend they’re not.
The second approach is clearly more difficult than the first, but it’s also more appropriate for the context. Rather than wishing for ways to punish your bigots or to threaten them with criminal prosecution, turn their negative interventions in campus culture into “teachable moments,” as the phrase is. Will this shelter the objects of “hate speech”? No. But it will support them, in the best sense.
The third approach is the most difficult of the three, and it’s unlikely ever to succeed entirely—or at least not fast enough to totally shield the objects of “hate speech” currently on your campus. But surely you agree that it is the best approach, if the long-term goals are to end bigotry rather than simply to silence the bigots and to create an environment where the objects of “hate speech” really can live without fear, rather than simply pretending they have nothing to fear.
Oh, no. I completely agree with you. And I think that steps two and three are actually beginning at Ursinus and that step one is ineffective and probably not going to happen in a formal way. At the same time, one of the more interesting/disappointing results of a diversity survey we conducted last year is that, while students deem the campus largely supportive, largely safe, largely good, students also were extremely loath to challenge hate speech. Thus, the informal social sanctions part is what concerns me: that the social sanctions only comes from the non-peers, which will ultimately not work. What frustrates, which you acknowledge, is the time required by steps two and three. I agree they are better, but they sure are less satisfying right now. You are much more patient than I am
However, what I will say is that what frustrated me about the event about which we discussed last year is that at first there were no steps evinced by anyone really: I think whenever these things take place there has to be an immediate though reasonable response. That happened this time, and it reassured me that such responses would be the norm, rather than the exception.
As far as hate crime legislation goes though, it appears as that is a spectacular expression of approach one, though I think it assumes that steps two and three will ultimately occur through cultural expressions so that they will eventually be rendered moot. I wonder just how many people have been prosecuted at the federal level for such crimes, or if they are largely symbolic–representing, as I’ve read today, mere pandering to liberal interest groups. I guess the argument then is between long-term, pragmatic efficacy and short-term, symbolic power (and even episodic protection). Both, I have to admit, are compelling to me.
Thanks Dave