On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Monica Buckland wrote:
> Stephen N. Drake wrote:
>
> > RALLY AND DIRECT ACTION
> > AGAINST PETER SINGER
>
> > It's not about academic freedom, it's about hate speech.
>
>
> Exactly. If you too hate people to have academic freedom, if you too
> can't be bothered to find out what exactly Peter Singer has written, or
> the context in which he wrote it, come along! We're angry about
> something or other, let's pick a target to protest against! It's much
> less effort than actually hearing what the man has to say.
> Anything we think we might not like, let's just silence it.
>
Monica, I think you're missing the point.
When you're talking about "silencing", you're getting into freedom of
speech. There are some rights that the government (or other people)
doesn't have the right to prevent us from exercising; there are other
rights that the government (or other people) should be expected to support
us in exercising. For example, we with disabilities expect the government
to ensure that we can get into businesses located on upper floors; but we
do not expect the government to ensure that we can climb stairs. In the
U.S. (where I am), the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no
law" restricting the exercise of free speech. That means that the federal
government will not get in your way if you have something to say. The
First Amendment does not say that "Ivy League universities shall offer a
platform" to anyone who has something to say. An appointment at
Princeton, a repeated series of fifteen-week chances to speak to students
who will someday be making policy decisions, is privileged speech, not
free speech. I am not, and will not be, asking that Peter Singer's books
be burned or that he be prevented from speaking his mind. I am asking
that Princeton University (which is permitted to govern the exercise of
speech in its classrooms and on its campus) take a look at the "Commitment
to Community" code it has in place (it is often referred to as "the hate
speech rules" because it talks about devaluing members of particular
groups and says that such speech is prohibited on campus), and consider
the moral implications of having such a "Commitment" in place and failing
to enforce it.
You can find the "Commitment" online at
http://www.princeton.edu/Ombuds/fairness.html
You also seem confused about academic freedom. Traditionally, that
freedom protects scholars who have already demonstrated their competence
in their fields from negative consequences when they move into unpopular
areas of research. It means that university administrators cannot dictate
to tenured professors what lines of research they may, or must, pursue,
and that people cannot be fired for unpopular research. As Princeton's
"Commitment to Community" shows, academic freedom is never absolute.
Scholars who violate the rules of conduct at a university, whether tenured
or not, are subject to dismissal. And Singer is, and clearly is, in
violation of Princeton's rules. This fall, he will be teaching four books
to a seminar of graduate students. One of those books, "Rethinking Life
and Death," is entirely composed of teachings in violations to Princeton's
"Commitment." Moreover, he was in violation of Princeton's "Commitment to
Community" at the time they recruited him. This isn't about the upholding
of academic freedom, it's about recruiting people who are known to be in
violation of the rules governing academic standards.
I hope this helps you to understand the points contained in my earlier
post.
Stephen Drake
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|