| |
|
Hmmm.. hostility? I don't think I'm feeling hostility, exactly. Profound ambivalence, certainly... but onwards.
If in fact they do care (and by they I believe even those that don't care must be catering to someone who does) then what other action can they take that is both upholding respect of the alleged victim, the accused, and the right of the students to free speech?
Well, I don't see any area in which the right to free speech of the students is being circumscribed. Free speech does not necessarily mean free speech all the time. Shouting "fire" in a cinema, or expressing one's beliefs by setting fire to a cross which just happpens to be on somebody else's lawn. You may wish to argue that these acts should be allowed without demur, but on a purely pragmatic level I must disagree. Likewise, if you decide to pose for a photograph in your Marine's uniform holding the severed head of a vilager, then you are associating the beheading of that villager with your position as a representative of the Marine Corps, and the Marine Corps is involved in your action and its presentation. Keyword here is responsibility, and also accountability.
Now, if Duke University is sincere in its desire to express its concern at the seriousness of this situation, they can do so in a number of ways that do not infringe people's basic right to free expression. I doubt that campus commissars are cracking down on people's right to express whatever opinions they might have in the lunch queue, or in dorm rooms, or on the college lawns. However, if somebody is using their college email to send homophobic abuse, then the college is implicated in that use of free speech. Likewise, if a person puts on an armband the message of which is "This NCCU student is a liar", and then takes to a sports field owned by Duke University wearing a sports kit that identifies her with Duke University as part of a sports team assembled and coached by Duke University, then if Duke University says nothing and does nothing about it, then they are, realistically, endorsing not just freedom of speech but the specific freedom to use Duke University as a sponsor and enabler of the expression of the specific belief that the alleged victim of a rape is lying.
Comparison. Robbie Fowler, the Liverpool footballer, once celebrated scoring a goal by removing his top, revealing underneath a T-shirt bearing a slogan supporting the strike of the Liverpool dockworkers. Although this endeared him enormously to many of Liverpool's fans, he was fined by the club, because he had decided to use the opportunities conferred on him by the status of a Liverpool footballer to make a statement unsanctioned by his sponsor.
Now, there were no allegations of rape or of perjury going on there - he was making a simple political point - but he acknowledged that by doing so he was creating a situation where his sponsor - like the university - had to take action in response to his gesture. Duke University has not done that. It has essentially stated that the $43,000 a year students can use Duke University resources to smear the $10,000 a year student.
So, that makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, so does the idea that it is OK for them to do this because it means I can now have dialogue with other people about the issue
.
Reference - back in the "Political Correctness - Collation and Discussion" thread I recommended to Phallicus earlier, Paranoidwriter said, explaining why his consensus-based approach to bigotry was better than "censorship":
Indeed, when (for example) a prejudiced taxi driver says something homophobic in my company, I usually say something along these lines:
"Sorry mate, I don't want a row, but I have no problem with homosexuality and cannot therefore agree with what I think you've just said and meant. If you want to talk about this and / or your opinions of gay people, then that's cool, let's have a conversation, even if I don't agree with you."
To which Deva responded:
told Tangent yesterday that I really wanted to just quote that back in a response with nothing but the words "Yeah, I didn't think you were gay." Because, you know, when a taxi driver says something homophobic to me, I have to decide whether to sit quiet and go through twenty-four hours of self-hatred (oh you are so cowardly and you have betrayed your brothers and sisters and non-gender-specific siblings), or to come out to him and risk being subjected to more abuse. To you, it seems, homophobia and bigotry are a teaching tool - either for you to learn about bigotry through discussion with bigots, or for you to teach anti-homophobic attitudes to homophobes. To some of us, though, they are a direct threat against our physical and mental integrity - in more or less direct or indirect ways, against our survival. And I'm sorry, but I don't really mind "silencing" the (fifty-year-old Guardian-reading) woman who hit me on a train for hugging my girlfriend in front of a child. I don't mind if she doesn't feel able to express the fact that I - whom she knows nothing about - should not be allowed to be around children, because my sexuality will harm them. I also don't mind if the person driving me from Point A to Point B doesn't feel able to express the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I'm deeply uncomnfortable with the idea that it is OK for a woman who may have been raped to be called a liar, since it means that other, wiser people will be able to talk on the Internet about it, and through the redemptive power of their discourse somehow ensure that a greater net amount of good is done by this act than otherwise, and therefore it is worthwhile. It seems as an argument to mislay somewhat the person-ness of a victim. The other thing, I think, which has been itching at me a little is that the idea that this is worthwhile because it will allow a debate to spring up possibly ignores that there is a debate already going on -about race, about class, about sovereignty, about violence against women. Again, I'm not sure it's worth putting one person on the fire just to raise some sparks. However, I may be underestimating the potential for good likely to come out of this. |
|
|
