Strange Definition of "Free Speech" -- Part Two
---
The other last refuge of pseudo-intellectuals, besides the art community, is of course the college campus:
I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Campus speech codes have long been a bizarre, mutant, self-contradictory phenomenon that have never made sense and have always been used selectively to enforce political correctness. Nothing new there.
But when there is flat-out, undisputed, video-documented violence, the wink-wink hypocrisy of censorship codes simply must yield to basic, universal principles of law that transcend the boundaries of the campus. Assault a person -- go to jail. Riot and incite to riot -- pay a fine. Force a heckler's veto -- pay restitution. And, one would hope: Use violence to disrupt your college -- be expelled.
Not even private universities have the authority to convert their premises into islands of anarchy, where invited visitors can be physically endangered by marauding gangs of thugs. This Columbia may not do.
Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg -- who claims to care so much about the health and well-being of the people under his philosopher-king care -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.
Or perhaps the accreditation boards -- whose raison d'être is to certify that colleges meet the basic requirements expected of institutions of higher learning -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.
Or perhaps these students will simply grow up. Unlikely, and inconceivable.
Last fall a group of Columbia University student thugs violently prevented a speaker from the Minutemen, a group concerned with illegal immigration, from finishing a talk that he had been invited to give by a campus organization. They invaded the auditorium and forced him off the stage.And Franz Kafka, check your Blackberry.
...
Their punishment? According to the student newspaper, "they were charged with simple violations of the University's Rules of Conduct. The resulting warnings ... will be notated on students' transcripts and remain there until the end of 2008."
...
If you think the punishment does not exactly fit the crime, the students involved entirely agree: "It's a light punishment, it's a slap on the wrist," said one of them, Monique Dols, a graduate student. "It's a victory for free speech and anti-racism."
No punishment at all for the violent suppression of free speech at an institution supposedly dedicated to it is a victory for free speech? George Orwell, call your office.
I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Campus speech codes have long been a bizarre, mutant, self-contradictory phenomenon that have never made sense and have always been used selectively to enforce political correctness. Nothing new there.
But when there is flat-out, undisputed, video-documented violence, the wink-wink hypocrisy of censorship codes simply must yield to basic, universal principles of law that transcend the boundaries of the campus. Assault a person -- go to jail. Riot and incite to riot -- pay a fine. Force a heckler's veto -- pay restitution. And, one would hope: Use violence to disrupt your college -- be expelled.
Not even private universities have the authority to convert their premises into islands of anarchy, where invited visitors can be physically endangered by marauding gangs of thugs. This Columbia may not do.
Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg -- who claims to care so much about the health and well-being of the people under his philosopher-king care -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.
Or perhaps the accreditation boards -- whose raison d'être is to certify that colleges meet the basic requirements expected of institutions of higher learning -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.
Or perhaps these students will simply grow up. Unlikely, and inconceivable.
Posted by Kip on
31 March 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.