Before beginning this post, I'd like for us to take a moment to acknowledge the school shooting that occurred today in Florida. There are two confirmed dead, and even more, injured. I'm wishing the best for the families that have been impacted by this tragedy and I'm hoping the school and community are able to heal from this.
*Update: As of 12:03am, the death count has risen to 17* There is nothing to say. I wish I could hug my parents, but calling them is the best I can do.
But this is a blog about student self-expression. So shifting into the topic of student self-expression at college, we can actually look at Penn State itself for its recent controversial speaker. About a week and a half ago, a small group of men came to Penn State and argued against pretty much everything. I'm not sure what their goal was because when I say they were against everything, I mean they were pretty much against everything imaginable.
However, sometimes, the power of student expression might be seen as having too much influence. This week, a class at Princeton University was canceled. That's a pretty big deal. The professor of the course Anthropology 212: Cultural Freedoms: Hate Speech, Blasphemy, and Pornography reportedly said the following: "Which is more provocative: A white man walks up to a black man and punches him in the nose, or a white man wlaks up to a black man and calls him a n****r?"
A student of color yelled "Fuck you" to him in response. Students walked out of the class. It was canceled. I can understand the outrage some of the students have expressed, and I imagine it must be that much more intense when you are a person of color. However, apparently, this professor has been using the example for years and this is the first year that he has received this type of response. Now, this makes me take a step back. The fact that he's been using it for years seems to now give evidence that maybe our generation believes that they have too much right to protest. This is Princeton University, after all, so it's fair to believe that the professor knows what he's doing. Even more, the class having the phrase "hate speech" in it should give some indication that this type of direct and not blanketed at all education would occur. The students shouldn't have had the ability for the professor to cancel the class for a phrase that is examining the specific issue that elicited the outrage.
Also this week, University of Georgia seems to be tackling this issue of free speech. There is currently a bill being debated that could penalize students who try to interfere with the presence of controversial speakers. I honestly have to commend the (possible) implementation of the policy. Why should the students' ability of self-expression interfere with the expression of speakers? According to the same source, most of the speakers who were run off were conservative speakers. Since it is well documented that most college students are liberal, it doesn't come as a surprise this is the group that is most resisted. However, if the speakers are not trying to harm anyone or incite others to harm anyone, I'm not entirely sure why they are being chased away. However, selective exposure really is not a good thing to be practicing. Being exposed to different viewpoints can help you emerge with strong logical rationality behind your values or even give you information that can help you understand the nuance of certain situations. Basically, student self-expression shouldn't come at the cost of compromising their own intellectual diversity. It really is an interesting thing that college students so highly value diversity of pretty much everything except diversity of thought.
*Update: As of 12:03am, the death count has risen to 17* There is nothing to say. I wish I could hug my parents, but calling them is the best I can do.
But this is a blog about student self-expression. So shifting into the topic of student self-expression at college, we can actually look at Penn State itself for its recent controversial speaker. About a week and a half ago, a small group of men came to Penn State and argued against pretty much everything. I'm not sure what their goal was because when I say they were against everything, I mean they were pretty much against everything imaginable.
Penn State is no stranger to controversial speakers, obviously because the infamous Willard preacher has been here for decades now. I'm actually more interested in the students who actively engaged with the speakers. There was this one girl in particular who must've been there for hours protesting these people. Furthermore, although it is difficult to tell by just a picture, there was a lot of unity with the students who gathered here. Yes, a few were here because they saw a crowd and were interested in what was occurring. But at the same time, a member of the group would make a point against the speakers and they would be met with resounding applause and encouragement. This is a really powerful moment for the Penn State student community as a group of strangers were able to come together and protest someone they saw as regressive. Some might argue that giving them attention is exactly what they want; but, in all honesty, I think partaking in these sorts of public events are powerful simply because they are a gauge of the public opinion in the moment.
However, sometimes, the power of student expression might be seen as having too much influence. This week, a class at Princeton University was canceled. That's a pretty big deal. The professor of the course Anthropology 212: Cultural Freedoms: Hate Speech, Blasphemy, and Pornography reportedly said the following: "Which is more provocative: A white man walks up to a black man and punches him in the nose, or a white man wlaks up to a black man and calls him a n****r?"
A student of color yelled "Fuck you" to him in response. Students walked out of the class. It was canceled. I can understand the outrage some of the students have expressed, and I imagine it must be that much more intense when you are a person of color. However, apparently, this professor has been using the example for years and this is the first year that he has received this type of response. Now, this makes me take a step back. The fact that he's been using it for years seems to now give evidence that maybe our generation believes that they have too much right to protest. This is Princeton University, after all, so it's fair to believe that the professor knows what he's doing. Even more, the class having the phrase "hate speech" in it should give some indication that this type of direct and not blanketed at all education would occur. The students shouldn't have had the ability for the professor to cancel the class for a phrase that is examining the specific issue that elicited the outrage.
Also this week, University of Georgia seems to be tackling this issue of free speech. There is currently a bill being debated that could penalize students who try to interfere with the presence of controversial speakers. I honestly have to commend the (possible) implementation of the policy. Why should the students' ability of self-expression interfere with the expression of speakers? According to the same source, most of the speakers who were run off were conservative speakers. Since it is well documented that most college students are liberal, it doesn't come as a surprise this is the group that is most resisted. However, if the speakers are not trying to harm anyone or incite others to harm anyone, I'm not entirely sure why they are being chased away. However, selective exposure really is not a good thing to be practicing. Being exposed to different viewpoints can help you emerge with strong logical rationality behind your values or even give you information that can help you understand the nuance of certain situations. Basically, student self-expression shouldn't come at the cost of compromising their own intellectual diversity. It really is an interesting thing that college students so highly value diversity of pretty much everything except diversity of thought.
I really don't think that passing a bill that penalizes students for counterprotesting, especially one as broad and vaguely defined as the one being debated in Georgia, is a good idea. According to the Red and Black, the bill would require UGA to suspend students found to be "responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others" twice. This vague standard is not just open to arbitrary, politically charged enforcement, but infringes on the students' right to free speech more than the students infringe on any speaker's. The speaker is simply denied an official platform from which to express their views, whereas the students face potentially devastating administrative consequences.
ReplyDeleteReally good insight! I was particularly interested the Princeton University issue. I feel as the students actions are justified in a sense. The professor although he was maybe trying to inform the students of the problem, he was talking about a hot topic and should of took more precautions. I would also fine it difficult to go to class after that too.
ReplyDeleteI can relate to your use of example with the protesters on our own campus! I remember seeing an enormous crowd surrounding a sign that I couldn’t quite read, and as I struggled to find a way through the crowd so that I could get to class, all I could hear was angry voices shouting. I definitely feel that reconciling hate speech with freedom of speech and diversity is a complex issue and I find the example at Princeton University powerful but incredibly delicate. While it is true that the professor was likely using it as a frank educational example, his statement was undeniably blunt and could be taken offensively.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is one that I have been adamant about since arriving at college. So many times I have heard and seen students using their right of free speech in such vigorous and sometimes absolutely inappropriate manners simply to spew their viewpoints to anyone who will listen. The fact that students are using vulgar language in the classroom to express their concern regarding the material of a course, like the incident at Princeton University, is fairly shocking. While I completely understand the students' outrage in regards to the diction and straight forwardness of the professor's question, there are so many other useful and powerful ways to express the emotion that the professor was most likely trying to elicit in the first place. The way I see it is that our generation is too ignorant and stubborn to see past the end of their noses when talking about controversial or simply different perspectives - it is actually pretty saddening to think that peaceful deliberation is barely possible when put in situations like the ones regarding our Penn State speakers.
ReplyDeleteHi Matt. The story you told about the class at Princeton shocked me. I can't believe at Professor would think it is okay to say that kind of hate speech in an inclusive classroom. I see your point that the class is about hate speech, however, it is completely uncalled for for a teacher to use that kind of language. It does not matter what kind of teacher your are. College classrooms are supposed to be an inclusive space, and I can't imagine being a student of color sitting in that classroom.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of selective exposure is one I take seriously. I think that speakers from all backgrounds should be able to speak, however, the right to protest should not be hindered. Some divisive speakers do cause violent protests, and I think the University should take safety precautions and prepare for adding extra security.