also I feel like it's an unwritten rule that it's kind of silly to pull the argument "But Free Speech!!" if you're doing something racist or whatever.
Free speech doesn't mean just speech you like. It means protecting expression in
all its forms. We can't allow censorship of things just because we don't like them; that sets a terrible precedent that can be abused in all the worst ways.
Honestly, these students went even further than that, though. They aren't trying to silence racists, though, they're shouting down free speech advocates who are trying to defend people who are questionably racist. It's like instead of shouting down Westboro Baptist Church, they're trying to get
Popehat taken off the internet. That's a
huge difference. It's one thing to want to silence racists, that's a normal (but misguided) reaction; it's another to try and shut down the speech of free speech advocates themselves. That's ridiculously authoritarian to the point where I would call it fascist.
The only instance of that happening within this story are the people refusing to listen and reflect upon their own actions and admit that their (subconsciously racist) choices may be hurtful and that there might be a better way to celebrate a holiday that doesn't deliberately exclude a large subset of people or portray another subset of people (for example; Native Americans) as savages (a common halloween costume).
I don't agree with the way the those students expressed themselves, either. I think it was distasteful and stupid. But defending free speech quite often means defending it in cases you don't like. Free speech is important because it protects the rights of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups to speak out about their problems without fear of retaliation. Shutting down students' freedom to express themselves is
not the right way to solve matters and can only create a terrible precedent.
If you allow censorship to rule the day here, do you really believe it won't be abused by your political opposites? Do you really believe that, for instance, evangelical Christians won't take advantage of the terrible precedent set by allowing censorship to get groups and opinions they find offensive censored? How many times in the past hundred years alone have those on the far right used "distasteful" or "offensive" as a reason to shut down ideas, discussions that could have moved things forward? Homosexual marriage was "offensive" to many Christians; "degenerate," "obscene," these are some of the terms they used to describe it. But at the end of the day, it was
discussion and
argumentation that brought down the walls.
"The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." We must make a stand here and now. If we allow others' freedom to be trodden upon just because we personally might find what they have to say distasteful, we set a precedent that will be used against every unpopular opinion from now on. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." The way to deal with something you disagree with is to take a stand against it, to speak out against it using reason, to prove to others and to your opponents themselves that their beliefs are flawed.
But this, this goes much further than merely trying to silence racists and bigots. This is trying to silence free speech advocates for defending one of our most important ideals. This is a witch hunt wherein what I can only accurately call authoritarians are trying to silence all dissent. That is unconscionable. These students ought to be ashamed of themselves. I've posted this story half a dozen places, shared it with everyone who would listen, because I believe it is my
moral obligation to take a stand and speak out against this. I don't like having to defend the rights of people who I believe are jerks, who I think are going out of their way to piss people off and upset people rather than have a constructive dialogue. But it is my
duty to speak out in support of them, and it is certainly my duty to speak out in support of the administrators defending their freedoms. "Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty," and of course "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
You need to understand that allowing things like segregation, even at parties,
This was an accusation of questionable merit. We don't know if that actually happened and we cannot condemn people for things they are merely accused of doing. However, if it did happen, I believe it comes down to whether it was on university property or not. The university should be the one to determine how their property is used, but if it was in a private venue they shouldn't have any say, nor should they be able to punish students for actions not on university property.
But even if it was on university property, I question whether they
should disallow it. For instance, should the university be able to shut down a gathering of black rights advocates who disallow whites from participating? I don't think it's right to exclude people from a discussion or event in
either case but I also don't know if it's right to stop them from doing so if that's what they choose to do. That's something I can certainly see both ways.
and silly racist costumes
They have as much of a right to dress up in a racist costume as you or I have to call them a racist for doing so. They only damage their own reputation with such antics; there's no need for the university to shut it down and there's little to differentiate a costume from someone carrying a sign with political speech on it. Again, this can create a dangerous precedent.
being swept under the carpet is kind of like opening a can of worms: "Well if that instance of racism was okay, what else can they get away with?"
The line is and should be where it currently is legally. Speech and expression are protected. Inciting criminal activity or direct, credible threats should not be. If someone does something like this, the correct response is to point out to them and to others why it's wrong.
And that is the issue; students do not feel safe because instead of reassuring students that more severe acts of racism would not tolerated on campus, they said these instances were okay and would not be dealt with.
What they did should be,
must be allowed. It should be looked down upon by everyone on campus, but it must still be allowed.
"More severe acts of racism" is vague, but again, inciting criminal activity, credible threats, and outright violence are already illegal and forbidden.
If the leadership responded with something like "we recognize the issue, and at this time we have no policies on choices of costumes, but we assure students that racism is not tolerated on campus" you probably wouldn't be seeing such an emotional response.
Racist speech and racist expression should be allowed so long as they don't fall under an established exception to free speech. That is the nature of having free speech; you have to allow distasteful speech. If the racists are acting in good faith and merely misguided, then engage them and point out why their beliefs are wrong. If they're obviously just trolls like WBC, then respond like we currently respond to WBC: be classier than them and stand in solidarity with the people they are targeting with their hatred.
But again, it's important to point out that students here have gone further than trying to silence racists. They're trying to silence free speech advocates. I have to wonder, if we allow them to triumph here, who will be next?
