Article: 15941 of alt.censorship From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: Date: 8 May 93 02:06:11 GMT Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Lines: 86 [A repost - Carl] From: dchetson@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Damon Chetson) Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc Subject: Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <125689@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: 7 May 93 08:24:47 GMT Did anyone happen to listen to Rush's show yesterday (Wednesday, May 5) during which he read a letter from a student at the University of Pennsylvania. The freshmen, Eden Jacobowitz, is the subject of a Judicial Inquiry investigation because of an incident which occured in January. Close to midnight one day in January, Jacobowitz was studying in his dorm room when he heard people outside making "woo-woo" noises and talking about a party very loudly. He opened his window and called the women, who are members of a black sorority, "water buffalo." He then told them that if they wanted to have a party, they could go to the "zoo" which is about a mile from here. Soon, members of Penn's police department came up to his floor to ask people if they had been yelling out their windows at the women. People had been yelling racial slurs and curses at the women, but no one stepped forward except for Eden, who believed he had done nothing wrong. The police then asked him if he had known the race of the women and he responde that he had known they were black, but that that had nothing to do with it. He only wanted them to stop making noise. Charges were then brought against Jacobowitz by the University's judicial inquiry office for racial harassment. The officer, Robin Read, said that water buffaloes are "large black animals that live in Africa." Actually, they come from Asia. She said that it constituted racial harassment. She asked Jacobowitz if he had had racist thoughts the night of the incident and he said no. Then she said that that did not matter. What mattered was what the women had felt when they heard the remark. "Water Buffalo" is an English translation of the common Hebrew slang term "behemah" which literally means water oxen, but it is used to call someone a "fool." It has been over three months since the incident and the case has not been resolved. The University's racial harassment guidelines state that racial harassment occurs when the accused verbally intends to inflict emotional pain on the victim. This was obviously not Jacobowitz intent. When he found out how his words had been taken by the women, he offered to talk to them to explain the term "water buffalo." But the Judicial Inquiry office refused. Last Monday, Jacobowitz was set to go to trial because he refused to accept the JIO's unfair and unjust plea bargain in which he would have the notation "racial harasser" placed on his transcript. He faces expulsion because he only wanted quiet that night. But last Monday, the Wall Street Journal and the Jewish newspaper Forwards ran articles and editorials denouncing the University. The trial was postponed until next fall because the University said the adviser for the plaintiffs was unable to show up. That, I believe, is wrong. I think the trial was postponed because University President Sheldon Hackney has been nominated for the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the unfavorable press over this incident will not help his confirmation by the Senate. Well it turns out that the University has reset the date of the trial for Next Friday. It's sad that Jacobowitz is the victim of Hackney's politics and the pc-movement. It's clear that racial harassment did not occur here. But let's look at attempts by liberals to regulate speech through speech codes. PC people believe that minorities have the right be free from being offended. But minorities do not. No one has the right not to be offended by speech. If you do not like what you read or see, then do not read it or look at it. Moreover, living in a free society means that, at times, you will be offended by what you read or see. Its part of of the perils of living in a free society. Damon Chetson dchetson@mail.sas.upenn.edu -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Article: 15989 of alt.censorship Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.rush-limbaugh From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <1993May8.091906.23724@newstand.syr.edu> Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept. References: Date: Sat, 8 May 93 09:19:05 EDT Lines: 125 dchetson@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Damon Chetson) writes: > >Close to midnight one day in January, Jacobowitz was studying in his dorm >room when he heard people outside making "woo-woo" noises and talking >about a party very loudly. He opened his window and called the women, who >are members of a black sorority, "water buffalo." He then told them that >if they wanted to have a party, they could go to the "zoo" which is about >a mile from here. > >Soon, members of Penn's police department came up to his floor to ask >people if they had been yelling out their windows at the women. People >had been yelling racial slurs and curses at the women, but no one stepped >forward except for Eden, who believed he had done nothing wrong. The >police then asked him if he had known the race of the women and he >responde that he had known they were black, but that that had nothing to >do with it. He only wanted them to stop making noise. Even if he had intended it as a racial slur, it simply does not rise to the level of harassment. Now the university can make rules prohibiting this sort of behavior (since it is a private institution); however, if it has other policies that protect free speech, they may override... >Charges were then brought against Jacobowitz by the University's judicial >inquiry office for racial harassment. The officer, Robin Read, said that >water buffaloes are "large black animals that live in Africa." Actually, >they come from Asia. She said that it constituted racial harassment. She >asked Jacobowitz if he had had racist thoughts the night of the incident >and he said no. Then she said that that did not matter. What mattered >was what the women had felt when they heard the remark. A stereotypical misunderstanding of racial/sexual harassment law. >From Meritor v. Vinson (1986) [the landmark SC case that forms the basis for sexual harassment prohibitions under Title VII of the CRA of 1964]: ...not all workplace conduct that may be described as "harassment" affects a "term, condition, or privilege" of employment within the meaning of Title VII. See Rogers v. EEOC, supra, at 238 ("mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee" would not affect the conditions of employment to sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII); Henson, supra, at 904 (quoting same). For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive "to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment. (This, of course, applies to workplace environments. However, even if we were to assume that similar prohibitions against harassment could be extended to an acdemic environment (say under Title VI), it's clear that shouting epithets out a window on one occasion would not be sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to be actionable. In this case, we don't even seem to have any epithets...) And even if it is the correct interpretation of *UPenn's* policy, the policy would probably be found unenforceable if challenged in court. >"Water Buffalo" is an English translation of the common Hebrew slang term >"behemah" which literally means water oxen, but it is used to call someone >a "fool." I would guess that it's actually from a Yiddish term. Yiddish is full of slang like this. I'm not particularly familiar with such slang in Hebrew. >It has been over three months since the incident and the case has not been >resolved. The University's racial harassment guidelines state that racial >harassment occurs when the accused verbally intends to inflict emotional >pain on the victim. This was obviously not Jacobowitz intent. When he >found out how his words had been taken by the women, he offered to talk to >them to explain the term "water buffalo." But the Judicial Inquiry office >refused. Well, there's not much they could do to stop him, is there? I presume that if these women filed a complaint against him, that he must know who they are. He could contact them on his own, right? >Last Monday, Jacobowitz was set to go to trial because he refused to >accept the JIO's unfair and unjust plea bargain in which he would have the >notation "racial harasser" placed on his transcript. He faces expulsion >because he only wanted quiet that night. Doesn't expulsion seem a bit overboard--even if this were a case of "racial harassment?" If your description of events is accurate, then my advice to Mr. Jacobowitz would be to play hardball. He should take some legal action against the university for violating his rights. I'd suggest that there are two easy things that he can do. 1) He should file a complaint within the university--using the same harassment rule--alleging that he is being harassed on the basis of his ethnicity/religion (i.e., his use of ethnic slang). 2) He should file a similar complaint with the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, alleging that his Title VI rights (under CRA of 1964) have been violated by the university. (And make sure that the university knows about it.) The latter is not likely to draw any interest from the OCR; however, it will take them some time to formally determine whether there is a case they are willing to investigate. In the meantime, some university administrators will be shitting bricks worrying that the OCR actually will decide to investigate the complaint (administrators are born worry-warts); they'll also start worrying more about how their actions may look just plain bad. Coupled with bad press (which is already mounting, by your description), I'd guess that there's a good chance that the university would turn-tail and run from this case. In any case, methinks it's time for civil libertarians at UPenn to get working at changing such dangerous policies. -- J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (I like to put 'greeny' here, but my d*mn system wants a *real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?" Article: 16008 of alt.censorship From: dchetson@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Damon Chetson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <126492@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: 12 May 93 16:55:11 GMT References: <1993May8.091906.23724@newstand.syr.edu> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Followup-To: talk.politics.misc Organization: University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts and Sciences Lines: 13 Mr. Greenfield asked if my version of events are accurate. They are. But, if you need other sources, the Wall Street Journal wrote three editorials detailing the facts of the case about a week and a half ago. The Washington Post wrote and article and an editorial around the same time As did the Phila. Inquirer, the Phila Daily News, George Will in the Washington Post, Nat Hentoff in the Washington Post, the Washington Times. It was also mentioned on This Week with David Brinkley. Damon dchetson@mail.sas.upenn.edu Article: 15993 of alt.censorship Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.rush-limbaugh From: luther@i7140a.nrl.navy.mil (Luther) Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Organization: US Naval Research Laboratory, Acoustics Division References: <1993May8.091906.23724@newstand.syr.edu> Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:03:46 GMT Lines: 37 In article <1993May8.091906.23724@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes: > >Even if he had intended it as a racial slur, it simply does not rise to >the level of harassment. Now the university can make rules prohibiting >this sort of behavior (since it is a private institution); however, if it >has other policies that protect free speech, they may override... [and] > >I would guess that it's actually from a Yiddish term. Yiddish is full of >slang like this. I'm not particularly familiar with such slang in Hebrew. > An intesting side effect of this whole PC witch-hunt is going to be that, regardless of the student's intentions when using the phrase "water buffalo", we have now witnessed the birth of a new racial slur. From now on, I'm sure it *will* be used as a racial epithet. This will be especially true if the university finds (as it should) that it was not "racial harassment", or whatever nonsense they're trying to label it. Then, the next time someone wants to insult black people, he/she can call them "water buffalo", and later claim that "water buffalo" has been legally shown to not be a racial slur. The PC crowd, in their efforts to eradicate the use of racial insults, have just helped to create a *new* one. Oh, the beautiful irony of it all! ------------------------------------------------------------ | My parents went to cyberspace, and all I got | | was this lousy .sig! | |Ken Luther, Mathematician Extraordinaire | |NRL | Washington, DC. 20375 | luther@i7140a.nrl.navy.mil | ------------------------------------------------------------ Article: 16021 of alt.censorship Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <1993May12.171418.26398@hemlock.cray.com> Originator: rja@mahogany126 Lines: 16 Sender: rja@mahogany126 (Russ Anderson) Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins! References: <1993May8.091906.23724@newstand.syr.edu> <1speiq$p1l@nwfocus.wa.com> <1993May12.194959.106390@zeus.calpoly.edu> Date: 12 May 93 17:14:18 CDT In article <1993May12.194959.106390@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mjacques@flute.calpoly.edu (Michael Jacques) writes: > In article <1speiq$p1l@nwfocus.wa.com> turmoil@halcyon.com (This is Just me. Party) writes: > >Limiting Speech is *NOT* PC.... > > No, in most instances, it's just plain illegal. Which is certainly what George Bush (et all) wanted for flag burning. Boy did the PC howl when the Supreme Court struck down that bit of PC legislation... -- Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect ------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993 EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!) Article: 16076 of alt.censorship From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <3165@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> Date: 14 May 93 05:09:49 GMT References: Followup-To: talk.politics.misc Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA Lines: 19 X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3 pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes: : In article <1speiq$p1l@nwfocus.wa.com> turmoil@halcyon.com (This is Just me. Party) writes: : >Limiting Speech is *NOT* PC.... : : So, what *do* you call the "hate speech" codes of places like U of Michigan, : and numerous other Universities? : : Patit Silly and misguided attempts to establish an atmosphere of civility among large groups of teenagers who would be much better left to discover the concept for themselves, I suppose. The speech codes are unacceptable and counter-productive, but the intention behind them is not to establish some hideous one-world communist conspiracy, as many here would imply. I know, I know- the road to hell, etc... Bill t Article: 16082 of alt.censorship From: mjacques@flute.calpoly.edu (Michael Jacques) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: [alt.rush-limbaugh, et al.] Free Speech at Penn Message-ID: <1993May14.005922.140422@zeus.calpoly.edu> Date: 14 May 93 00:59:22 GMT References: <1speiq$p1l@nwfocus.wa.com> <1993May12.194959.106390@zeus.calpoly.edu> <1993May12.171418.26398@hemlock.cray.com> Sender: news@zeus.calpoly.edu Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Lines: 33 In article <1993May12.171418.26398@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes: > >In article <1993May12.194959.106390@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mjacques@flute.calpoly.edu (Michael Jacques) writes: >> In article <1speiq$p1l@nwfocus.wa.com> turmoil@halcyon.com (This is Just me. Party) writes: >> >Limiting Speech is *NOT* PC.... >> >> No, in most instances, it's just plain illegal. > >Which is certainly what George Bush (et all) wanted for flag burning. > >Boy did the PC howl when the Supreme Court struck down that >bit of PC legislation... I know. Wasn't that bizarre. Perhaps they missed the point when Justice Kennedy said "The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result." We may not like flag burning, but given the facts and the law, it was the right decision. Perhaps now, with Texas vs. Johnson, United States v. Eichman, and R.A.V vs. City of St. Paul, Minn., we can finally squash the attempts of those who wish to curb legal speech. Isn't also ironic how, as Justice Brennan was lecturing the nation on the danger of banning offensive speech, one university in Michigan (I think it was one in Ann Arbor) enacted a policy that pretty much did exactly that? > >-- >Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect >------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993 >EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!) Twins fan? I am. Wasn't that an awesome game? For me, only Game 1 of the 1988 World Series was a more exciting game.