[1556] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Flag Ban
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Tue Feb 10 22:20:29 2004
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:00:09 -0500
From: Ray Jones <thouis@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
To the Editor,
Sadly, we are again faced with those that should be acting to defend
free speech on campus instead choosing the easier path of squelching
it. The report from the Ad-Hoc Flag Committee goes through the
usual obeisances to academic principles ("...MIT [has] a long standing
and deeply held tradition of academic freedom..."), only to pull the
rug out from under us a few sentences later ("While a banner or poster
may express one person's view, [it] does not allow for feedback or
exchange of ideas.")
Based on the quotes from Julie Norman, who led the committee, and
Benjamin Navot, a student on it, this idea that one-way communication
shouldn't be protected is the main justification of the suggestion of
the committee. "Things on the outside of a building aren't a two-way
medium," according to Mr. Navot. He goes on to assert that Jonathan
Goler's hanging of a flag, since it didn't allow feedback, was "almost
harassing in a sense." Norman said, "We can all voice an opinion, but
we all have to allow someone who doesn't agree with us to respond and
engage us in dialogue." These justifications don't hold up under even
the barest of consideration.
If speech on campus is only allowed in two-way media, am I justified
in defacing posters I disagree with? There was a civil-rights display
in Lobby 10 last week. Should the KKK have been invited to protest in
front of it? Are lectures now only acceptable if everyone, students
included, gets equal time to speak? Obviously, none of these are
true, yet they are the only logical conclusions if we accept that
two-way communication is the only acceptable form.
Second, to equate Mr. Goler's flag-hanging with harassment is
repugnant behavior, for which Mr. Navot should apologize. Harassment
is a serious breach of ethics, and in many cases criminal. Accusing
someone of harassment, especially when one knows it might appear in a
campus publication like the Tech, should be done only when one is
absolutely sure of it. That Mr. Goler was not harassing anyone should
be patently obvious to anyone familiar with harassment. Moreover,
such statements inure our community against cases of true harassment,
impeding efforts to address a serious issue.
Finally, this brings me to Ms. Norman's comment. To limit the freedom
of speech to those willing to listen might be seen as fair, but this
is weak justification for censoring speech. Are religious beliefs
therefore never to be talked about on campus, because there can be no
arguing with faith? If I wear a "Vote Bush" shirt walking down The
Infinite Corridor, do I have to stop and listen to every Democrat's
opinion in the interest of fairness?
The simple fact is, the old policy, implicitly allowing flags and
posters to be hung from dormitories, was already a two-way medium. If
I didn't like a flag being flown, I could fly a different one, or
write a letter to the Tech, or protest at 77 Mass. Ave. Or just have
ignored it altogether. All of these are better ideas than banning
flags and free expression.
The ad-hoc committee could have done something good with their
mandate. They had the chance, and sadly, decided to take the easy and
cowardly way out. Instead of shoring up free expression, and
supporting dialogue and exchange of ideas on campus, they've decided
to put limits on us all. They could have encouraged those that
disagree with others to speak up, to justify their own position, to
actually exchange ideas. Instead, they've given us all a lazy
solution: just stop both sides of the discussion before it starts.
This "burn the village to save it" mentality about difficult speech
seems far too common on campus, to the detriment of us all.
Perhaps this is all that could be expected. When the committee was
formed, Dean Norman explicitly said that it would not be conducting
any polls or surveys to gather student input (The Tech, November 25,
2003). I suppose two-way communication is a principle that only
students should live by, not deans.
Thouis Jones
Graduate student
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
