I must say, I'm not very impressed by this - any more than I was by the stilted and bumbling testimony of the Penn president. The problem under discussion, which you seem to be ignoring as deftly as most commentators on this issue, is not whether any college or university should take action against a student or employee who says somethin…
I must say, I'm not very impressed by this - any more than I was by the stilted and bumbling testimony of the Penn president. The problem under discussion, which you seem to be ignoring as deftly as most commentators on this issue, is not whether any college or university should take action against a student or employee who says something like, "I believe the Holocaust was a good thing," or "We ought to kill all Jews." These repulsive statements would be protected by the Constitution, but certainly do not have to be - and ought not to be - tolerated in any institution. But we all know what the presidents were attempting to tap-dance around: the fact that there are statements, such as "From the river to the sea," which some listeners interpret as a call to genocide, and others do not. Some students, upon hearing such a statement, will feel "unsafe," and they certainly have every right to feel how they feel; the problem is that they cannot know the intention of the person or persons making such a statement without interrogation and discourse. And interrogation and discourse, even under very uncomfortable circumstances, are exactly the things that are supposed to happen in universities. To require that every student "feel welcome and protected in their place of living and learning" at all times is, however noble a goal, simply an impossibility in an institution dedicated to the examination of ideas. If we keep pursuing this unattainable goal, there will soon be no examination of ideas allowed - nor, indeed, any ideas to examine in the first place.
I'm not trying to defend Magill; I don't know why she couldn't have said some version of what I just wrote. Assuming that she doesn't actually believe in the extermination of Jewish people (and does anyone really believe that she does?), her testimony was, frankly, dull-witted to the point of ridiculousness. But to pretend that the very definitions of "genocide" and "safety" are not - as astonishing as it may seem - up for grabs today is disingenuous. We all know that both those words can be used as substitutes for "I don't like the emotions your words are evoking in me." And we need to stop pandering to those who hurl these words at speakers who make them merely uncomfortable, as opposed to those who use them to represent real and present dangers. These words are too important, their ramifications far too grave, to be misused in this way. Unfortunately, it seems likely that they will continue to be devalued until communication between adherents of clashing ideologies becomes entirely impossible.
I must say, I'm not very impressed by this - any more than I was by the stilted and bumbling testimony of the Penn president. The problem under discussion, which you seem to be ignoring as deftly as most commentators on this issue, is not whether any college or university should take action against a student or employee who says something like, "I believe the Holocaust was a good thing," or "We ought to kill all Jews." These repulsive statements would be protected by the Constitution, but certainly do not have to be - and ought not to be - tolerated in any institution. But we all know what the presidents were attempting to tap-dance around: the fact that there are statements, such as "From the river to the sea," which some listeners interpret as a call to genocide, and others do not. Some students, upon hearing such a statement, will feel "unsafe," and they certainly have every right to feel how they feel; the problem is that they cannot know the intention of the person or persons making such a statement without interrogation and discourse. And interrogation and discourse, even under very uncomfortable circumstances, are exactly the things that are supposed to happen in universities. To require that every student "feel welcome and protected in their place of living and learning" at all times is, however noble a goal, simply an impossibility in an institution dedicated to the examination of ideas. If we keep pursuing this unattainable goal, there will soon be no examination of ideas allowed - nor, indeed, any ideas to examine in the first place.
I'm not trying to defend Magill; I don't know why she couldn't have said some version of what I just wrote. Assuming that she doesn't actually believe in the extermination of Jewish people (and does anyone really believe that she does?), her testimony was, frankly, dull-witted to the point of ridiculousness. But to pretend that the very definitions of "genocide" and "safety" are not - as astonishing as it may seem - up for grabs today is disingenuous. We all know that both those words can be used as substitutes for "I don't like the emotions your words are evoking in me." And we need to stop pandering to those who hurl these words at speakers who make them merely uncomfortable, as opposed to those who use them to represent real and present dangers. These words are too important, their ramifications far too grave, to be misused in this way. Unfortunately, it seems likely that they will continue to be devalued until communication between adherents of clashing ideologies becomes entirely impossible.