Outrage of the day

Nothing important will be happening today, I assume, so I'll turn it over to Volokh. The summary is that some conservative magazine at Tufts ran some stuff that was offensive to people. Tufts disciplined them. Their statement is the most comical thing I've read in a long time, though.

[W]e find that the MSA proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that The Primary Source harassed Muslim students at Tufts, and created a hostile environment for them by publishing "Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission." The Committee found that the MSA established that the commentary at issue targeted members of the Tufts Muslim community for harassment and embarrassment, and that Muslim students felt psychologically intimidated by the piece....

So, at Tufts, your discourse is limited to what sufficiently powerful groups will allow. If they don't like it, they'll just say they were harassed and psychologically intimidated.

[A]lthough Tufts students should feel free to engage in speech that others might find offensive and even hurtful, Tufts University's non-discrimination policy embodies important community standards of behavior that Tufts, as a private institution, has an obligation to uphold. Our campus should be a place where students feel safe, respected, and valued. Freedom of speech should not be an unfettered license to violate the rights of other members of the community, without recourse.

They should feel free to engage in speech that others might find offensive and hurtful... but that feeling is going to be wrong. It takes some amazing balls to write that with a straight face. Which rights of other community members were violated?

We find that the above-mentioned carol and commentary, rather than promoting political or social discourse, as claimed by the members of The Primary Source, instead were designed to harass and intimidate members of the Tufts community because of their race (black) and religion (Islam)....

We shall determine what is and is not discourse. We are so blinded by our devotion to our special interest minorities that we can't even comprehend criticism of them as discourse. It must, instead, be harassment and intimidation.

[T]he Committee has attempted to strike a balance between protecting the rights of students to exist on campus without being subjected to unreasonable attacks based on their race or religion and protecting the rights of students to publish controversial writings....

We also get to determine what is and is not reasonable. There shall be no disagreement on this issue, because if you disagree, it will not be discourse, since disagreeing with us on what is reasonable is not reasonable.

The Committee believes that it is important for Tufts University to foster an intellectual climate in which students feel free to express their thoughts, however controversial. Nevertheless, based on the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing on April 30, 2007, the Committee on Student Life holds that The Primary Source violated Tufts University's non-discrimination policy in publishing the carol "O Come All Ye Black Folk" and the commentary "Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission."

It seems "however controversial" means "controversial only to a point." Another impressive show of balls in writing. I guess it's not technically a contradiction, since they say they should "feel free," rather than saying they should "be free."

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/11/2007 01:20:00 PM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

wow. for being located in such an open-minded city as Boston, you'd think that Tufts would at least allow free speech/press.

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:21 PM, May 11, 2007

 

That's absolutely terrible.

If you read their condemnation, it makes it sound like the magazine personally targeted muslim students by name and threatened them. If that were true, then sure, that might be out of bounds, but if you actually read the article it's absolutely amazing that they could be censured for this. I can absolutely imagine someone being offended by it, but to claim they're not "promoting political or social discourse" and that they were designed solely to harass and intimidate is just ridiculous.

It's a student publication; if people don't like it, they shouldn't read it or better yet, they should start their own publication or website.

Of course, it's easy to write a condemnation. The ASUC senate has tried to write condemnations of the Squelch several times, but actual punishment is a much further step. My guess is there's no way Tufts acts on this ruling in any real way; it works better as a vague threat against future publishing so that every group on campus starts second guessing themselves and living in fear.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:15 PM, May 11, 2007

 

Well, the publication has been prohibited from running pieces without a byline, and the student government has been encouraged to defund the publication, so it isn't completely toothless.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 7:51 PM, May 11, 2007

 

Prohibited from running pieces without a byline?

Wow, talk about bullshit. I wonder if that state has any laws governing free speech on private colleges because if they do that seems like something worth suing over.

# posted by  Anonymous : 8:22 PM, May 11, 2007

 

That's more of a California thing. But if they have anything in the student guide about freedom of speech, I guess they could sue for breach of contract or something. Ask the Boalties. They've done that.

FIRE has commented on it, and they're running a publicity campaign, but the fact that they aren't suing suggests that there isn't legal basis for it.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 9:27 PM, May 11, 2007

 

Yo Beetle, what do you think of this related issue?

http://clog.dailycal.org/415/the-future-of-futura-should-we-expect-a-sensitivity-orgy

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:54 AM, May 12, 2007

 

Post a Comment