[1510] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
treading carefully on free speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai-yuh Hsiao)
Mon Oct 13 11:57:31 2003
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:53:23 -0400
Reply-To: eepness@MIT.EDU
From: Kai-yuh Hsiao <eepness@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <uv67k3dwy5e.fsf@tenebrae.ai.mit.edu>
I also appreciate Dean Randolph's willingness to contribute to the
discussion. I'd like to emphasize and add to Jeremy's points about
his perspective, though.
Dean Randolph stated:
> There is not such thing as free speech; there are consequences to
> what we say and do.
What if I were to restate this:
"There is, indeed, such a thing as free speech. However, there are
also consequences to what we say and do."
I would be less worried if representatives of the administration at
least saw the issue in that light. We are free to speak as we wish,
and people who find what we say offensive are free to counter as they
wish. Some students wrote an inadvertently offensive email, and the
community responded in turn. The community response thus already
constitutes a consequence.
> One thing I do know
> is that the discipline system has education as its primary intent;
> all of our disciplinary processes should have growth and new
> understandings as an outcome.
I argue that the education has already taken place. The community
response has brought new understanding and knowledge to the students
already. If you need to verify this, then invite the students to
lunch and talk with them. Both you and they stand to learn from a
well-intentioned exchange like that.
That said, I thus believe that undertaking a formal disciplinary
process at this point is a dangerous idea. No matter how
"educational", any formal punishment handed down at this point is
redundant. If punishment serves to educate and to deter future
occurrences, I assure you the education and the deterrence has already
taken place. The offense caused by the email was unintentional. It
may be lamentable as well, but the education served by the community's
response will already deter the likelihood of future occurrences.
If the email was, instead, intentionally offensive, then I could
potentially see further punishment as being appropriate. But that's
not the case here.
Dean Benedict just made a statement in the Tech that the flag-hanging
issue is a matter of rules, not freedom of speech. Be that as it may,
the situation with the party email _is_ a matter of freedom of
speech. If you hand down official punishment for an unintentionally
offensive act of speech, or if you codify a set of guidelines for
speech, then you are effectively sending the message to the community
that they are officially not free to speak as they wish.
And that's extremely dangerous. MIT and other reputable academic
communities should be leading the world in freedom of expression, not
stifling it. A lot of people have learned a lot of things from the
discussions resulting from that party email. It's open discussion
like that that leads to education, and that will eventually improve
the cohesiveness of a community and people's ability to relate to one
another. I see no higher ideal for an institution of learning as a
whole to pursue.
When offensive speech takes place, the community responds. Gay rights
activists are not jailed for offending the religious right.
Antiabortionists are not jailed for offending the abortionists. And
no administrators will go to jail for offending me, a proponent of
free speech. Rather, dialogue within the community ensues, people
learn of the merits of both sides, and then people are free to choose,
vote, purchase, support, and speak as they see fit, based on what they
have learned.
In fact, "Ghettopoly" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179270.stm)
stopped selling today not because the author was sent to jail, or the
company was fined, but because enough of the public complained.
Economic and social forces ran their natural course. The government
has no need to interfere there, and the administration has no need to
interfere here.
Freedom of speech is a higher ideal than the seeking of revenge by
those who were unintentionally offended. Besides, as Jeremy implies,
you cannot produce a code of conduct for speech that is uniformly and
impartially enforceable, fairly and equally prevents offense to all
possible groups, and still engenders open academic discussion. You
could try, but you will fail, and the MIT community itself will suffer
the consequences in the long run. MIT, for all that we represent,
needs to have higher standards of freedom than the common populace,
not lower.
I'm not coming at this from just one side of the issue, either. I get
just as offended as anybody would when I'm walking in the city and
some passing teenagers derisively ask me if I know Kung-Fu, or if I'm
just like Bruce Lee. I may get offended, but wishing harm or
punishment on them is irrational; it only increases resentment on both
sides in the long run. I happen to know that all the cultures are
mixing more and more over time, and with that comes acceptance and
gradual understanding. Nothing short of time and patience will bring
that understanding. Trying to rush it by punishing people for their
statements and their views, as I said, will only increase resentment
and prevent people from genuinely coming to understand one another.
People with power may find it convenient to declare things right and
wrong. For some things, it's reasonably clear-cut and you simply have
to take a stand. But when things are not so clear, it isn't your
place to force a black-and-white clarity upon the issue, no matter
what your personal preferences. Our community, and indeed society as
a whole, will be stronger and better off in the long run given freedom
to let these things run their course.
Don't punish the students; nothing you do to intervene will produce
better results in the end. Not in this particular case. In all
likelihood you will cause more people at MIT to worry about their
every spoken word, for fear of additional unpredictable retribution.
Creating such an atmosphere of fear can only cause great harm to the
MIT community in the long run.
Kai-yuh
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:23:24AM -0400, Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
>
> My questions for you are simply these:
>
> * Is it really the case that MIT students may be subject to formal
> disciplinary action on the basis of sending email that is perceived
> as offensive by some portion of the MIT community, even though that
> email was intended humorously, did not target individuals for abuse,
> and was sent only to private mailing lists?
>
> * Since there are evidently a number of students who did not find the
> email offensive, does MIT have a plan to provide written guidelines
> clearly defining the scope of offensive speech? If not, how does
> MIT plan to make it possible for students to avoid accidentally
> stumbling into disciplinary trouble as have the senders of the
> Ghetto Party email?
>
> * How does MIT reconcile the need for open expression and discussion
> in the academy, with the institution and enforcement of a speech
> code on its students?
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
> mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
> http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
