Today a number of rightie bloggers are complaining that a conservative student newspaper at Tufts University has been found guilty of “harassment” by the Student Life Committee, allegedly for publishing racist and anti-Islamic smears. Here is what the conservative student newspaper says about it:
Showing profound disregard for free speech and freedom of the press, Tufts University has found a conservative student publication guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment for publishing political satire. Despite explicitly promising to protect controversial and offensive expression in its policies, the Tufts Committee on Student Life decided yesterday to punish the student publication The Primary Source (TPS) for printing two articles that offended African-American and Muslim students on campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has spearheaded the defense of TPS, is now launching a public campaign to oppose Tufts’ outrageous actions.
From the Tufts University web site:
The Committee on Student Life (CSL) today released a decision finding The Primary Source, Tufts’ conservative journal, guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment.
As a result of the verdict, all pieces in the Source must now be attributed to specific authors. The CSL, which is comprised of students and faculty members, also recommended that “student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning funding and recognition,” according to a copy of the decision that was sent to the Daily.
Today’s result stems from an April 30 hearing during which two separate cases against the Source were heard. In one, David Dennis, an African-American senior, said that the Source’s Dec. 6 carol “O Come All Ye Black Folk” constituted harassment and the creation of a hostile environment. In the other, the Muslim Students Association brought the same two charges against The Primary Source for its April 11 piece “Islam – Arabic Translation: Submission.” Both of these Source pieces were unsigned.
Regarding the content of the offensive material, I mostly agree with what Fontana Labs says at Unfogged:
My initial inclination is to say that while publishing this sort of thing is irritating and nasty– like its predecessor, the satirical carol “Oh come all ye black folk,” this item isn’t really intended to spark an interesting conversation so much as it’s intended to marginalize people who get enough of that already– it’s not the sort of thing that should be banned by harassment policies.
Part of the difficulty here, I think, is the tendency for college students in general and “Campus Conservative” types in particular to be a little bit too attracted to the idea of stomping on sacred cows no matter what the day-to-day effects. This unfortunate attachment is just increased by going the official-sanction route. Fantastic: more conservative students who are bitter about being kept down by The Man.
My general view is that colleges and universities have an understandably janus-faced view of student agency: sometimes they’re adults, sometimes they’re not. This puts the institution in the awkward position of officially endorsing the virtues of autonomy and free expression while inconsistently applying pressure on uncomfortable exercises of this freedom.
He’s probably right about that. Even though the offensive material has all the literary and intellectual value of used kitty litter, these children conservative students just get even uglier when they feel oppressed. Better to let them get the bile out of their systems and into public view. Thirty years from now some of them will run for political office, and then their opponents will dig up this muck and leak it to news media, and then they’ll be sorry.
The conservative students argue that since their Muslim piece was factual, it can’t be censored.
A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.
See what I mean about getting uglier when they feel oppressed? But this argument has two weaknesses.
I understand this newspaper was chartered and funded by the university’s Student Life department. If that’s not true, then what the students put in their newspaper ain’t none of the Student Life department’s business. If it is true, then in effect the Student Life department is the newspaper’s publisher. And publishers, right or wrong, do get the last word on what goes into the publication. That’s not censorship or libel; that’s capitalism. Writers and editors who work for all kinds of publications in the real grown-up world often have very little freedom to write and publish whatever they want. They write and publish what the publisher says they can write or publish.
Student newspaper staffs are forever overstepping the bounds of the principal’s or dean of student’s taste and getting into trouble for it, and the students eternally holler they are being censored, but in reality the youngun’s are assuming a lot more freedom than they’ll have if they go into journalism or publishing when they grow up.
I agree with the conservative student that what they published probably was not libelous, as I understand libel law, but I don’t think that was the problem the Student Life people had with it. The Student Life group thought it created a hostile campus environment for black and Muslim students, which is a different issue from libel.
I can appreciate how nasty it is to be in a hostile environment, but whether the conservative student newspaper by itself was rendering all of campus life hostile is a judgment call. As much as I sympathize with the black student who complained about the racist piece, sometimes it can be a mistake in the long run to enforce the rules of polite society too rigidly. Sometimes you just drive the ugliness underground where it festers out of sight and becomes even more dangerous.
Even though the conservative students put a disclaimer in their publication that their views do not reflect the views of Tufts University, in reality I believe it’s still a publication of Tufts University. If someone were to sue the newspaper for damages — I don’t think that would apply in this case, but let’s pretend — any money rewarded by a court would, I assume, come out of the university’s hide. So I have some sympathy with the university in this case, and I disagree that students have an absolute right to publish anything in a student newspaper.
The moral is, if you want the unfettered freedom to write and publish any damn fool thing you want, you have to pay for it yourself.
My second quibble with the conservative student is his assumption that factuality and truth are the same thing. Alas, it ain’t necessarily so.
It’s the oldest propagandist trick in the world to present carefully selected facts to tell a lie. You could, for example, pick through a biography of Adolf Hitler and compile a list of completely factual statements that would make Hitler himself seem like a perfectly nice guy. You’d have to leave out the part about the Holocaust and World War II, of course, but it could be done.
The point is that an isolated statement may be completely true and still be used to say something that is not the truth. And someday maybe I’ll elaborate on that, but not right now.
First of all, Islam is not a race, so criticizing it can’t possibly be racist. (Actually, I am a software programmer which is a totally different species.)
This is the first time I’ve read your blog. I just read your post and I now know that you are not particularly fond of conservative students.
And it sounds that you grudgingly, dammit, support their rights to free speech. Good on you.
First of all, Islam is not a race, so criticizing it can’t possibly be racist. (Actually, I am a software programmer which is a totally different species.)
I realize that Islam is not a race, but I strongly suspect that a song parody titled “Oh come all ye black folk†is racist.
There really has to be something wrong with young conservatives who genuinely feel oppressed by the minorities, gays, women, and the foreigners.
Did they ever take a look at the racial, and gender make up of all our powered interests? How can you do that and still be such a little whiner?
Important point taken that, in America, the entity that pays the bills has the editorial control. Let’s say that the “right” to punish the paper, or close it, is not in question.
But, still, the justification was “harrassment.” That’s ridiculous. “In bad taste?” “Detrimental to the Tufts community?” I would prefer not to give conservatives a characterization so easy to deride.
And that’s assuming that any action at all was the best idea, which this liberal and anti-racist really doubts.
The point is that an isolated statement may be completely true and still be used to say something that is not the truth.
You mean like the Catholic Church was still burning people at the stake for heresy up until the 1850’s?
Maha,
I’m sorry, but you’ll have to rewrite this post. It’s waaaaaaaaaay too nuanced for conservatives to understand.
Telling the difference between “Truth” and “Truthiness” is not part of the right-wing skill-set.
Truth vs. Lie. Black vs. White. Christian vs. anyone… Any “Us” vs. “Them” will do. That, they understand. So, try again…
And good luck in trying! 🙂
I have one quibble with a good post on a tough subject. You said that in 30 years (or so) the piece could be dug up by political opponents and used against the author(s). The articles were unsigned, that’s one change required by the students council. BTW, this is an issue with me; I don’t sign my work because I am concieted; i do so because I will stand by (or apologize for) what I pen. Being able to take pot shots from the dark is one of the more cowardly aspects of the internet.
The articles were unsigned,
Even better; those puppies can come back to bite anyone on the newspaper staff at the time.
OK all, here’s wht it all means (at least to me):
There is a Vast Right-wing conspiracy…
Hillary was right in the ‘90’s – there is a vast right-wing conspiracy! And, to think, people laughed at her. She spoke the truth!
The right-wing writer’s will be taken care of – for life!!!
For those who don’t know how it works, just watch Gonzales and his testimony. He doesn’t care that he’s a lying dog… He knows that, like in the Mafia of old, he, and his, will be taken care of!
It’s “Republican “Omerta!†A safety-net, if you will…
How does Bill Kristol keep his job being wrong 100% if the time? How do Rush, Sean and ‘Billo†keep theirs?
It’s easy. They have nothing to fear. As long as they swear fealty to “Republican Omerta,†they’ll do fine.
This is what the “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy†is all about. This is their dirty little secret. They take care of their own. No matter what…
First, you swear unending loyalty. I return, you’re guaranteed a six-figure income for life. Where? In right-wing think tanks. That’s why AG the AG is lying and obfuscating at every turn. He has nothing to fear. If he’s impeached; even if he goes to prison, he has nothing to fear. He’ll be taken care of later. “The Heritage Foundation†will hire him at a great salary the second he gets out. He’ll get a six-figure salary even if he drools while lecturing to the choir. He’ll be a hero in the Republican circle. Look at E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordan Liddy… Liddy is making a fortune on the Republican rubber-chicken circuit.
This is the dirty secret that is behind the new-Republicans: “Republican Omerta…†Their safety-net.
Monica Goodling’s testimony about AG the AG will be worthless unless she’s willing to break this code. But, why should she? It’s what got her here. What made her, a Regent’s College graduate in ‘nothing knowledge,†qualified to make judgments on judge’s.? Just “Republican Omerta!â€
She will lie to one and all despite her immunity. Why? Because they will take care of her if she does.
If she tells the truth, she’s screwed…
So, be aware of “Republican Omerta.†Tell your friends. We, on the left, have nothing like it. Nor should we…
A person stands for what they stand for.
We should all live by our ideals’ and idea’s.
There should be no net.
This should be the new “No-net†world.
We stand,
Or we fall.
We get up,
And do what we think is right.
No net to catch us.
Or, all is lost.
Republican’s, they have their Omerta.
Democrat’s, we have our soul’s…
Our soul’s…
I’ll take my soul over fealty,
No net to catch me,
Over Omerta any day.
Any day…
Our job is to make Democrat’s
Realize that
Soul trump’s Omerta,
Every day…
Every day!
Or else,
It’s a world that’s
Not worth waking up to…
I am what I am.
I stand where I stand.
I lean where I lean.
I’ll fall where I fall.
Let there be no net.
No net…
I think the CSL handled this correctly. It is typical of the right-wing smear machine to try to hide their machinations, a la Karl Rove, or to foment whisper campaigns, a la Katie Couric’s “some people say”. The members of the university have the right to know who among their numbers are dishing dirt and, one would hope, to ostracize them accordingly.
There really has to be something wrong with young conservatives….Did they ever take a look at the racial, and gender make up of all our powered interests? How can you do that and still be such a little whiner?
And have you ever taken a look at the environments that young conservatives have spent most or all of their formative years in?
A 21 year old college graduate has spent at least 15 years in the school environment and 0 years in the “real world”. It’s really not surprising at all that the racial make up of the “powered interests”, has MUCH less impact on their thinking than does the makeup and culture of the “interests” which have dominated their daily environment for their entire lives.
I used to be a little bit of a PC-whiner too and when I think back on it the reason is completely obvious. Schools are, in general, MUCH more “PC” than the “real world” at large – I’ve attended both public and private schools and public & private universities. ALL of them could fairly be described at much more PC than any other environment I’ve ever been. While the notion of the “powerful PC police” may seem laughably absurd to us now, it is NOT absurd to many students who are in, or just out of, an environment where the “powered interests” (aka. teachers & administrators) are not only NOT overwhelmingly white men but ALSO belong to a culture where “PC” ideals still have serious hold. The PC-whining appeals to young conservatives because it resonates with their lives in a way that dry numbers about the demographics of society simply can’t.
You’re correct in stating that “factuality and truth are not the same thing.”
However, the appropriate response to allegedly inaccurate assertions in public discourse is to rebut those assertions. That is what the Muslim students were challenged to do. Instead, they demanded that the Source be penalized for issuing the challenge. It’s hard to decide which is more infuriating — the arrogance of this demand, or the fact that it was successful.
However, the appropriate response to allegedly inaccurate assertions in public discourse is to rebut those assertions.
The assertions in themselves were not, I assume, inaccurate. The lie was created by compiling the cherry-picked facts as if they represented the whole truth.
And there was no “challenge” issued, unless you consider “you stink and your mother is ugly” a “challenge” that has to be answered. An insult is just an insult; a smear is a just smear. Don’t dignify bigotry by pretending it’s something other than bigotry.
That said, I think any institution, be it a workplace or a college campus, has to walk a fine line between rigidly squelching expression and allowing the entire environment of the place to be poisoned by bigotry. It is sometimes the case that a large clique of bigoted bullies can take over a place and make life hell for whoever they are targeting — usually women or minorities. I think that whoever is in charge of the institution has a responsibility to see to it that doesn’t happen. It shouldn’t be up to the target to defend herself or himself.
On the other hand, as I said, sometimes it’s better to let the bigots have their say rather than drive bigotry underground. If the larger community disapproves of their bigotry they don’t have much power to poison the entire environment. All they’re doing is demonstrating what jerks and idiots they all are.
Schools are, in general, MUCH more “PC†than the “real world†at large
Young people generally lack the judgment to know which fights they should fight and which they should just walk away from. Young people tend to piss each other off about all manner of things that more mature people shrug off.
I see the “PC police” phase as a kind of growing pain. Possibly it’s something some young people have to go through to get out of their systems. Until they do they can be pretty obnoxious, I realize. They annoy me, too, sometimes.
I mostly feel the same way about the pubescent twits that publish juvenile bigotry in school newspapers. For some, these little tantrums amount to a last adolescent rebellion against the adult society they are being shoved into. Most of them will have outgrown this by the time they’re thirty. Unfortunately a few stay stuck in the netherworld between childhood and adulthood — Ann Coulter comes to mind — and it’s way pathetic, but I don’t know what’s to be done about it.
I love being a big fan of freedom of speech – it generally makes incidents like this one pretty each to analyze. I appreciate the nuance that you put into the post Maha, but the issue is pretty simple. These adults (ok, *young* adults) wrote an article that others found offensive and objectionable. They can, and should be, call to the mat for it. But, it’s wrong for the university to punish the students, in any way, shape, or form, because many people disagree with their opinion or the manner in which they expressed themselves. Make no mistake, there’s no “harassment” here, no shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre, no incitement of rioters looking to harm Muslims or people of color. The punishment stems only from the fact that people were offended. This is a dangerous precedent and a bad lesson for students — universities should try not to be in the habit of restricting the exchange of ideas.
But, it’s wrong for the university to punish the students, in any way, shape, or form, because many people disagree with their opinion or the manner in which they expressed themselves.
It’s not that simple. Under some circumstances (which may not apply in this case) a group of people really can create a “hostile environment” for some people. For example, a workplace that permits wholesale sexual harrassment of female emplolyees has created a “hostile environment” for those women. This goes way beyond just “disagreement” about what other people say.
I take it the Student LIfe committee (which I think is a student council, not university administrators) decided the right-wing hate speech was creating a “hostile environment” for black and Muslim students.
If that’s true, then the Student Life council was correct to clamp down on it. However, I suspect it’s more likely the right-wing students are such a small part of campus life they aren’t capable of making the entire campus environment hostile. They’re just being assholes. So, let ’em be assholes, I say.