Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: [Parker-L] Speech Code at Dalhousie U. (Canada) Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:15:06 GMT Approved: kadie@eff.org Lines: 185 [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: Professor Jennifer Bankier said the code was needed because as a woman, she was not free to speak, because she was treated as a heretic. "Bankier's lack of access to free speech is not immediately evident." She is tenured, a voting member of the University senate, president of the faculty association, and "one of the most persistent voices in favor of the speech code." "With such achievements, Bankier ought to inspire young women entering Dalhousie. Instead, she proclaims herself a victim [...]."] Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [Parker-L] Speech Code at Dalhousie U. (Canada) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 23:11:26 GMT [Copyright 1994 by Parker Barss Donham. All rights reserved. Posted with permission. Parker Barass Donham writes a column on free speech issues in the Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada) Daily News. His columns (and a discussion) are also available via email. To subscribe, send a message to listserv@nstn.ns.ca with the usual line: subscribe Parker-L - Carl] Parker Barss Donham's column 20 February 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have a daughter at Dalhousie, but if I did, I'd be darned sore at the University Senate for assuming she needed special protection from the rigors of free speech. That's the condescending message hidden in last week's vote to establish a code against discriminatory harassment at Dal. The senate thinks women, blacks, natives, and gays are no match for the sexists, bigots, and knaves they'll encounter in life. But that's not what Nichet Smith thought when she came upon a racist flyer at Arizona State University, where she was a third-year student in justice studies. Smith and three friends, all of them black women, were visiting a campus residence when they noticed a mock application for minority job seekers tacked to an apartment door. The flyer's hateful, racist stereotypes filled the women with anger and hurt. What they did _ and did not do _ is instructive. Nat Hentoff recounts the story in his book, (BOLD) Free Speech for Me _ But Not For Thee, (ROMAN) a survey of the movement to impose political orthodoxy on U.S. campuses. Powered by their own anger, the women pounded on the door of the apartment, demanding to know who had put up the poster. The occupant who answered stressed that he was not responsible, and that he understood why they were angry. He agreed to take the poster down. Next, the women organized a residence-wide meeting. About 50 students, half white, half black, showed up for a spirited discussion of race relations at the university. ``It's offensive to me as a white person,'' a female student said, ``because it looks like all white people feel that way.'' The meeting led to an anti-racism rally, a news conference by black students, an evening program at the residence on African-American history, and more discussions of race relations among more students of both races. The school newspaper was flooded with letters, including one that read: ``We would like to extend our sincerest and deepest apologies to anyone and everyone who was offended by the tasteless flyer that was displayed on our front door. . . . We did not realize the hurt that would come of this flyer. We now know that we caused great distress among many different people and we would again like to apologize.'' These four black women didn't run from the hateful challenge thrown up at them. Equally important, they did not ask the university to ``protect'' them by invoking the school's speech code. Instead of trying to silence their adversaries _ a strategy that would only have turned them into martyrs _ the women confronted them, and overwhelmed them with the moral and intellectual force of their arguments. The students who put up the racist flyer learned a lesson, too, one that could change their outlook permanently. In short, everyone benefitted from what John Stuart Mill described as ``the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.'' That's not the approach a majority of the Dalhousie Senate thinks students should take in similar circumstances. The senate expects offended minorities to cower in fear of their adversaries, file anonymous complaints, invoke secret disciplinary procedures. The imposition of a speech code is a declaration of educational failure: a failure to reach those who harbor offensive, ignorant ideas, and a failure to equip women and minority students with the skills and confidence needed to confront and overcome such louts. If racist and sexists attitudes are allowed out in the open, those who know better will at least have an opportunity to challenge them. But at Dalhousie, students who arrive with bigoted views will henceforth keep their own counsel _ and leave four years later with their retrograde ideas in tact. The sanctification of victimhood for women and minorities was vividly evinced by Jennifer Bankier, a professor of law who spoke in favor of the speech code. Like many who seek to silence those who disagree with them, Bankier fancies herself a believer in free speech. Indeed, she told the senate she had come to Dalhousie for the very purpose of finding free speech, only to discover that, as a woman, she was not free to speak, because she was treated as a heretic. Bankier's lack of access to free speech is not immediately evident. She is a full, tenured professor at one of the nation's most distinguished law schools. She is a voting member of the University's governing senate. The Dalhousie Faculty Association recently elected her its president. She was one of the most persistent voices in favor of the speech code. With such achievements, Bankier ought to inspire young women entering Dalhousie. Instead, she proclaims herself a victim, deprived of free speech by the usual culprits: middle-aged, white, heterosexual men. What a pathetic self-portrait _ for Professor Bankier, and for Dalhousie. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1994 by Parker Barss Donham. All rights reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * To post comments to all Parker-L subscribers, send an e-mail message to: Parker-L@nstn.ns.ca -- Parker Barss Donham | R.R. 1, Bras d'Or, | (902) 674-2953 (vox) pdonham@fox.nstn.ns.ca | N.S., Canada B0C-1B0 | (902) 674-2994 (fax) From pdonham@fox.nstn.ns.ca Sun Feb 20 13:20:47 1994 Delivery-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 15:20:55 CST Return-Path: pdonham@fox.nstn.ns.ca Received: from fox.nstn.ns.ca by hal.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA14982 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 20 Feb 1994 15:20:52 -0600 Received: from [137.186.24.116] (antigonish-ts-16.nstn.ns.ca) by Fox.nstn.ns.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27880; Sun, 20 Feb 94 17:20:49 AST Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 17:20:47 +0400 From: "Parker Barss Donham" Message-Id: <73516.pdonham@fox.nstn.ns.ca> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_14.6 Reply-To: X-Popmail-Charset: English To: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Repost permission request Status: R On Sun, 20 Feb 1994 13:02:28 -0600, Carl M Kadie wrote: > >May I have permission to repost today's speech code column to >alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk/news? > >- Carl Cheerts, Parker -- Parker Barss Donham | R.R. 1, Bras d'Or, | (902) 674-2953 (vox) pdonham@fox.nstn.ns.ca | N.S., Canada B0C-1B0 | (902) 674-2994 (fax) -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =