[1513] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: ["Robert M. Randolph" ] Re: What we may have missed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Thu Oct 16 14:02:06 2003
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:27:53 -0400
From: Ray Jones <thouis@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <uv63cdtn7wx.fsf@tenebrae.ai.mit.edu>
"Jeremy H. Brown" <jhbrown@ai.mit.edu> writes (quoting Robert Randolph):
> I think free speech is only free when the reigning orthodoxy that
> anything goes can be challenged.
"Anything goes" is a gross misinterpretation of the "reigning
orthodoxy". Harassment is illegal under Massachusetts and Federal
law. However, MIT twists the definition of harassment to simply be
that of giving offense. It does not take into account the intention
on the part of the speaker, the likely interpretation by a reasonable
person, whether harassing actions were repeated even after requests to
stop, or even the context of the speech. It's as simple as "what you
said made me feel bad, therefore you harassed me."
Every time someone, and in particular an administrator, defends the
MIT speech code as written, I suffer strong feeling of fear and anger
at their willingness to infringe on my civil liberties. I feel, quite
literally, physically ill. Under the MIT speech code, I have cause
to file a harassment complaint. Quoting "Dealing with Harassment":
"Harassment is any conduct, verbal or physical, on or off campus, that
has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual or group's educational or work performance at MIT or that
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational, work, or
living environment."
I honestly feel intimidated, that the work environment at MIT is
hostile to me based on my beliefs. I truly fear reprisal because I'm
willing to speak up about free speech and academic freedom. It's
definitely interfered with my work, and not just because I feel
morally compelled to speak up. For hours after reading such a message
my hands shake so much I can hardly type, and I can't concentrate on
work at all.
Under the MIT definition of harassment, I have cause to file a
harassment complaint. Under MIT's definition, I have been harassed.
There's simply no other way to interpret the paragraph above, in
conjunction with my feelings.
This is utterly, sadly, and deeply _idiotic_. I shouldn't feel that
solely because I'm offended by someone's expression of ideas and
beliefs, I should be able to successfully punish the holder of those
ideas. Yet this is exactly what MIT's policy allows and encourages.
I would also be deeply ashamed to file a harassment complaint based on
these feelings. And I am ashamed of those that do abuse the speech
code at MIT. Extremely so.
> You cannot shout fire....
This is perhaps the most frequently abused phrase in the lexicon of
speech suppression. And it's incorrect. You cannot falsely shout
fire. Yet, under the MIT speech code, speakers can be punished as
easily for factual statements as well as expressions of opinion.
> and I don't think that you can by words create a hostile environment
> for people of color, sexual orientation , etc. As many as there were
> who were not offended, there were many who were. And the
> system/discipline/response must be able to demonstrate that its
> charges can stand scrutiny.
I posit that it is impossible to make any statement with content
without offending someone. I'm a radical atheist. This is true, but
it probably offends some religious people because it means I think
their beliefs are false. I think political correctness is less
important than academic freedom. That may offend the politically
correct police, because I don't buy into their view. I think the MIT
harassment policy is wrong-headed, bad for the community at MIT, and
possibly illegal. Does that offend its proponents?
I'm not arguing that "anything goes". I think harassment is wrong,
verbal or otherwise. But to equate being offended, even deeply, and
being harassed implies such restrictive limits on speech that students
would be hard pressed to write _anything_ without it being
actionable.
My concerns might be dismissed by the belief that any complaint of
harassment generated by such speech would be dismissed at a hearing.
However, the stigma of such a complaint being filed and receiving a
hearing is sufficient to give me pause.
> In a community where groups buy into the values of the community it
> is not unreasonable to think that there are boundaries that cannot
> be crossed or the social contract is shattered.
I don't recall buying into a community where the first amendement is
given second class status or where academic freedom is limited in
favor of political correctness. I certainly feel like it's being
imposed on us.
I would ask a follow up question of Dean Randolph (or any other
administrator that cares to speak up):
Do you feel that MIT's speech code is more restrictive than the First
Amendement and Massachusetts laws against Harassment? Would it be
invalid at a state universityin Massachusetts?
Thouis Jones
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
