Feature Story from Tim Wise
Tim Wise
December 29, 2005
This article was originally published in Lip Magazine. Recently, I published an essay concerning racism on college campuses and the issue of free speech. The commentary was prompted by news that Andrei Chira, a freshman at Bellarmine University, in Louisville, has been wearing a neo-Nazi armband around the school for the better part of the Fall semester.
In the body of the piece, which can be found
here, I sought to do three things.
First, I wanted to present the facts of the case at Bellarmine, and describe the conflict between those who oppose any limits to free expression, and those who feel certain types of hateful speech may be so intimidating to students of color (as an isolated and small minority), that certain limits might be acceptable, in the form of restrictive hate speech codes.
Secondly, I sought to examine the free speech issue, ultimately noting that I find neither the arguments of the free speech absolutists, nor the hate speech code advocates entirely persuasive.
To the free speech absolutists, I pointed out that there are many forms of speech limits we live with, and virtually all support (bans on harassment, libel, slander, perjury, plagiarism, etc). Furthermore, I tried to explain that rights always must be balanced (in this case, free speech and the First Amendment against equal protection and the Fourteenth), so that certain types of speech, such as one-on-one racist invective or speech that carries an implied threat of violence can obviously be restricted without running afoul of personal liberties we rightly wish to protect.
To those advocating speech code restrictions, I pointed out that such efforts are cheap, easy, but ultimately not the best way to fight racism. First, they reduce racism to interpersonal conflict (rather than an institutional problem reinforced by power imbalances), and encourage the belief that racism is only to be found at the extremes: manifested by those who use racial slurs or wear Nazi symbols, for example. Passing such restrictions allows institutional elites to think they've done something, even when, in truth, the most pernicious (and often more subtle) forms of racism persist: old boy's networks that determine hiring, or unequal educational resources that constrain higher ed access to begin with.
And finally, I sought to present an alternative to either hate speech restrictions or merely doing nothing. Specifically, I noted that if Chira has free speech, and has the right to offend and make persons of color uncomfortable, then so too do others. As such, Bellarmine students should exercise
their free speech, by wearing anti-racist, anti-Nazi, or even anti-Andrei Chira armbands. Likewise, they should refuse to speak to him or associate with him in any way (after all, free speech also means the freedom
not to speak). Lastly, Bellarmine should operationalize their mission and vision statements (both of which stress the importance of cultural diversity and human dignity in a global environment), by requiring persons seeking to attend school or work there to demonstrate a commitment to racial equity and justice in order to enter the institution, or once there, to graduate, be promoted, or receive tenure.
To these suggestions, and the larger argument, I received many responses, most of which were favorable, but some of which seemed to have missed my point altogether. Several apparently thought I had called for speech restrictions, and proceeded to lecture me about the slippery slope that might follow such mandates. Since most of my readers are fairly liberal or left to begin with, these typically sounded the alarm that communists or anarchists might be next--prohibited from expressing their views because they would offend others.
Of course, in point of fact, I had not endorsed speech codes or restrictions on hate speech (except in the fairly obvious cases of one-on-one harassment or invective, which no rational person would want to defend, and speech that includes a threat of violence). I did not take a position as to what should happen with Andre Chira, in terms of his right to wear the armband, and generally, to be a racist ass. If anything, my endorsement of alternatives to speech codes at the end of the piece suggests I am not a fan of speech restrictions, even if I reject the absolutists' claims about slippery slopes as horribly simplistic.
Among the litany of responses I received, however, one stood out for its depth of thought, its well argued counterpoint to my own position, and the desire on the part of the author to engage the issues from the perspective of how best to address racism, which, after all, is the primary concern here. As such, and despite disagreeing with her position, I felt it would be useful to give voice to her criticisms, and then explain why I feel that my suggestions in the original piece remain valid.
The person who took issue with my original article, made several arguments, which roughly can be synthesized to the following:
1. Andrei Chira is young, clueless and insecure, and like many such persons, looking for scapegoats and an identity for his own unexamined rage;
2. Although this hardly excuses his actions, it suggests he is in need of education, not ostracism, as I recommended, or the donning of armbands directed at him personally, or hostility more generally. After all, to further marginalize him (in his own mind at least) and to shame him for his views, might only generate more of the hostility and rage that animated his original gravitation to neo-Nazism, and thereby make his racism worse; and finally,
3. For Bellarmine (or other schools) to restrict access to people like Chira in the first place (by making a commitment to equity and diversity a qualification for admission) would only prevent racists from being exposed to alternative ways of thinking, thereby allowing them to remain ignorant, and thus, more dangerous to the society at large.
Because the person penning this response was making a heartfelt (and I would say quite reasonable) argument about what is, and is not, the best way to fight racism, it is important to engage her concerns. After all, if my suggestions would, on balance, make things worse, then obviously as a committed antiracist activist, I would want to rethink them. But having thought about the concerns expressed above, I feel there are a multitude of problems with the "educate don't ostracize" position being put forth by the person in question.
Patience and Education at Whose Expense? To begin with, even as we acknowledge that persons like Chira suffer from a profound ignorance, and that it is important for such persons to have that ignorance challenged with wisdom, this truism yet begs the question: At whose expense should Chira's education come?
So, for example, should Chira's need for a guiding and patient hand to help him work through his rage, stupidity or whatever, be thought of as more important than -- or even equally as important as -- the right of students, staff and faculty of color to be able to work and go to school in environments free from overt forms of racist hostility? In other words, even to the extent we agree that it would be best -- all things equal -- for us to re-educate Chira and not ostracize him or shame him, to what extent should persons of color be expected to bear the weight of this re-education process?
I have long agreed that it is important for those of us who are white to be patient and even forgiving towards other whites (and ourselves) for falling into racist patterns of thought: after all, everything in our culture encourages exactly that direction. But there is a difference between exhibiting that patience and forgiveness, when the only person from whom it requi
