I sent this in to the Lantern as a guest column. I kept it to 750 words so there were some things I would like to have said that I couldn't, but I think I get the point across:
The recent ad by FrontPage Magazine in the Lantern (rightfully) attracted a lot of negative attention. The sample of letters published by the editors all lamented the Lantern’s decision to publish it, claiming in various ways that the ad offended the standards of the community. Clearly, this is true, as the outcry against it showed. The ad was offensive on several levels; not only to Muslims, but to all of us who believe in religious tolerance, or, for that matter, basic logic and argumentation. I do not need to detail its flaws, and the letter writers of January 25th mostly didn’t feel the need to do so either. Indeed, they are obvious to the vast majority of people on this campus. I highly, highly doubt that anyone who read that ad without being already predisposed to view Muslims negatively was convinced to do so by what they saw.
But to those of you who think the Lantern should not have published this ad, I ask: Where did those community standards come from? In the Lantern of 1912, things much worse than that ad could have been written about Muslims (to say nothing of African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, and many other groups) and it would have been considered unremarkable by many on this campus and throughout our society. What has changed since then? The answer to that question, I believe, is that a free society talked these issues out and new, more inclusive, values have emerged. Admittedly, this process isn’t always pleasant; it often works specifically through incidents of offensive speech. In this particular case, through the Lantern’s publication of the ad, important issues were brought to the consciousness of everyone. Are those who believe the Lantern should not have published this ad really so worried about their ability to rebut its claims that they would rather not have this conversation? Are they so pessimistic about the critical thinking skills and common sense of the Ohio State community that they believe that it would be better for everyone to simply not talk about this?
On Sunday (1/29/2012) I read the statement (sorry, I can't find it on the web; if you want to see the whole thing, email me) from Javaune Adams-Gaston, Vice President for Student Life, in the OSU Weekly email sent to graduate and professional students. She said (in part): “Ohio State works hard to build a culture of inclusion, equity, and appreciation for diverse peoples and ideas, so it is disheartening when those efforts are undermined by instances of discrimination. This is not how we treat one another, especially at an institution of higher learning.” This is a very interesting statement that deserves to be unpacked.
First, it is an answer to the question I posed earlier. The answer seems to be that indeed, OSU’s administration (or, at least, one member of the administration) seems to have such a low opinion of all of us that they think they need to protect us from instances where we might need to critically evaluate a speaker’s claim. Evidently, they do not trust that we will not draw unwarranted conclusions from shoddy evidence like that prevented in FrontPage’s ad, and thus, they think that we cannot effectively participate in the marketplace of ideas. I find this troubling, especially given that developing such skills are one of the most important reasons we all are here.
Second, I believe that this statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of where a “culture of inclusion, equity, and appreciation for diverse peoples and ideas” comes from, and what the threats to such a culture are. A culture of inclusion does not arise because administrators from the Student Life office tell us we should have one. Rather, it is a byproduct of the free inquiry that we engage in here. It emerges from the encounters we have here with people of different beliefs and backgrounds. If our culture had been imposed from outside of us, it might be so brittle that a quarter-page ad in the Lantern could undermine it. Fortunately, our culture comes from within us, and is made of much stronger stuff. I believe the reaction to the ad is evidence that this is so.
understand the inclination to protect people from speech they will find offensive. Nobody enjoys reading something like the ad we all saw. However, it is important to recognize that some good came from the exchange that resulted. By having this conversation, we all did our part to build an inclusive culture at Ohio State. If the Lantern had shut the conversation down before it started, we would have been poorer for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Stop saying shit I agree with. It's making it hard for me to be biting and sarcastic. And that's making me stabby.
"Stop saying shit I agree with. It's making it hard for me to be biting and sarcastic. And that's making me stabby."
Um, sorry? :)
I can see both sides to the argument ... and while I definitely appreciate the "it started a conversation" side to the argument, I also can't help but feel that speech like this has the potential to create an atmosphere of discrimination and oppression at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment is already strong in the U.S. To me, that outweighs any benefits to the "conversation" side of the argument.
However, if these guys want to write books that say/imply "Muslims are evil", that seems perfectly fine under the 1st Amendment. However, they do not have any particular right to have this speech printed in a media outlet ... in fact, it would seem to violate the newspaper's 1st amendment rights if they essentially had to print this (or any) ad. I think a newspaper is a great place for conversations about sensitive issues to take place, but is this the best way? And, where does one draw the line? If an anti-abortion group wants to run a full color ad of an aborted fetus, or a pro gay marriage group wants to run an ad consisting simply of a picture of a penis ... sure, it'll start a conversation, but that seems to be pretty tasteless (and not the best way to start a conversation).
Ultimately, it seems like any newspaper has to make decisions about what its readership wants to read. It's a business decision, and seems to the newspaper's way of exercising its own 1st amendment rights. Besides, OSU in my experience is a place where all kinds of lectures, dialogues, debates, etc. happen, representing all sides to these kinds of issues. There's lots of conversations going on already ... and quite frankly, this ad doesn't really seem to add anything to the conversation.
But it's a very interesting issue: where to draw the line on free speech. Too much or too little free speech is harmful to society ... but where to draw the line is ultimately a subjective issue.
@Buckeye Chuck....
Your comment raises two issues, as I see it; let me treat them in turn.
1. First, let me clarify my position: I did not argue and do not believe that the Lantern should have been forced by anyone to run the ad. If they had refused to run the ad, I think that would have been a mistake for the reasons I posted. But I wouldn't substitute my judgment for theirs -- they can hold whatever standards they want to achieve whatever goals they have for the paper, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know, nobody made them run the ad; if someone had stepped in to force them to run it, that would change my opinion. I would still think it was a good idea to run it, but I don't think they should be forced to do so if they didn't want to. That was the whole point I was getting to with the bit about Student Life -- it sounds like they are going to attempt to exercise control over the paper and I think that is an abysmally terrible idea.
2. Now, to our actual disagreement: I acknowledge that it is possible that this particular speech might cause discrimination and oppression against Muslims (although I haven't seen much evidence of it). I would suggest, however, that to censor the ad would constitute discrimination and oppression in and of itself, and thus, would make it a certainty. Clearly, to not print the ad would constitute discrimination against the viewpoint it contains -- the Lantern prints lots and lots of ads, and to not print this one because of its viewpoint would be discrimination based on its viewpoint. If you balance the potential harm caused by someone who might read something in the paper and be stupider than they already are against the definite harm to the people who want to express their opinion, to me the choice to censor is difficult to justify.
One response I can imagine to this line of reasoning is that some viewpoints _ought to be_ discriminated against and oppressed, especially given that I just said that the Lantern has (and should have) the authority to do so if they want to, in their own paper. As you mentioned, such a decision wouldn't unduly disturb free speech as there are many other outlets for such activity. All that is true -- not all viewpoints are created equal (certainly the viewpoints of the ad and its opponents aren't!) and I wouldn't expect them to be treated equally in all respects. But I think the Lantern is wise to disclaim the role of censor if they can possibly avoid it, because the wider they can stay clear of censoring potentially valuable viewpoints, the better it is for all of us.
3. One last, minor point that I think encapsulates our disagreement. I concur with your point that this ad doesn't add much to the conversation (although it certainly has stimulated a lot of thought about speech and censorship on my part, for whatever that's worth). But (a) I don't know how you'd know that ahead of time and (b) I'm not sure why your (or anyone else's) opinions on that are to be privileged to decide what does and does not constitute a valuable contribution.
@PQB
All good points, and let me first apologize for misrepresenting your position. Being a little ways away from OSU these days, this was the first I heard about the controversy and was having a hard enough time just keeping the who-did/said-what straight.
As for the issues at hand, my first caveat is that I'm thinking of the Lantern as *a newspaper*, rather than a school newspaper ... issues such as competition, profit, and the mission of the paper are obviously a little different than for a regular paper ... but to make life easier, I'll set that aside. Perhaps that's not fair, however, as a regular newspaper is clearly a "business" whereas you could argue that a school newspapers has a bit more of a "public service" element to it as well as ties to the university, etc.
I suppose the decision to not run an ad amounts to censorship ... but virtually every decision a newspaper makes involves the issue of what information to include, how much to include on any subject, and how to portray that information. As such, I'd imagine that a newspaper spends as much if not more time deciding what *not* to include (i.e. discriminating between "worthy" news or "acceptable" ads) as what to include. Due to space limitations, similar decisions must be made about editorials, letters to the editor, etc. Seems like that just goes with the business of running a newspaper, and such decisions are based on factors such as the perceived needs and desires of the readership. But I agree, in general, that it is better to err on the side of disclosure rather than discrimination. And, as these things go, I see much more inflammatory stuff online compared to the innuendos of this ad ... and often from "respectable" blogs/websites/columns online. Although, again, there is the critical distinction between the right to free speech and the right (or lack thereof) to make others transmit your speech, should they find it offensive.
More broadly, however, if we are going to agree that there should be *some* limit on freedom of speech--that the law should not protect me if I go into a movie theater and yell "fire!" with the intent to incite panic, call someone an ethnic slur, etc.--then SOMEONE has to be the judge of what determines "acceptable" versus "unacceptable" speech. And again, for a newspaper, it seems like that should be the editors. It's ultimately a subjective call ... but I think most would agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere and that the fact that two people might not agree where the line should be drawn does not lead to the conclusion that a line should not be drawn.
Post a Comment