The Greek Tragedy of Campus Censorship
Most American universities have eliminated the once common requirements that their students study the ancient Greek classics, such as the plays of Sophocles and the Homeric epics. Whatever the reasons for this change, a highly unfortunate byproduct of it is that a startlingly small number of people on campus seem to understand the fundamental risks of what the Greeks called hubris: excessive pride or arrogance. And one of the main places this becomes apparent is in the relentless yet doomed attempts to banish so-called “hate speech” from campus.
In the wake of the Tuscon mass shooting last month, a vast array of commentators immediately jumped to the conclusion that “hateful rhetoric” must have been behind the crime, or at least influenced it. As it turns out, accused shooter Jared Loughner appears to have been motivated more by his own mental illness than any particular outside stimuli (seriously, the guy had a skull shrine in his backyard).
Yet this revelation did not challenge the underlying assumption made by many in politics and the media that we would certainly be better off if violent rhetoric, hate speech, or other “extreme” forms of expression could be silenced. One got the feeling that the First Amendment was an obstacle that somehow needed to be overcome in our quest for a peaceable society.
This kind of thinking is rife on university campuses, and unlike in society at large, most universities actively ban speech that is protected by the First Amendment in an effort to create a more benign campus environment. While this is unlawful at public universities and generally deceptive at private universities (most of them promise free speech but fail to deliver), the effort to ban “bad” speech has widespread support on campus among administrators and even students.
For instance, a student article in the Tufts Daily last week defended Tufts’ decision to declare a conservative newspaper guilty of “harassment” for two articles (a parody of affirmative action and a list of unpleasant facts about Islamic regimes), by saying that “[t]he idea that more speech can be used to combat hate speech operates on the assumption that all speech is equal. That is unrealistic…. [T]the call for more speech [to combat hate speech] places an undue burden on those targeted by hate speech to be constantly acting in their own defense.” Indeed, the student author seems downright terrified of freedom of speech, saying, “Hate speech rather degrades a person’s humanity, worth and sense of self…. [F]ree speech policies merely institutionalize the ability of people to hurt others.”
At North Carolina State University, the existence of a “Free Expression Tunnel” on campus has led to similar efforts by students to eliminate “hate speech.” After a group of students painted the entire tunnel black to protest racist comments written about President Obama last November, a movement began to find some way to regulate what was written on the tunnel walls. The student government took a survey on whether it should create a student group to “keep up” the tunnel (which could only mean monitoring and eliminating “offensive” speech from the walls).
Thankfully, a majority of N.C. State students rejected this idea, but the student government is leaving open the possibility of supporting such a group in the future.
One of the many shocking things about these efforts from a historical perspective is the level of hubris required for students or administrators at an American university to believe that banning the expression of “hate” will somehow keep hate off of campus. Even if you accept the premise that having the authorities silence hateful speech will somehow lead to less hate in real life (a premise I certainly do not accept and will address in a future column), the fact is that the record of regimes of censorship is a record of failure.
In the Soviet Union, for instance, copy machines were seen as such a dangerous threat to the state (because of how easy they would make the spread of dissident ideas) that the state controlled all of them. There was even a specific agency for this purpose that was run by the ruthless KGB. Nevertheless, dissident ideas still spread through techniques like Samizdat, in which forbidden volumes were copied by hand and passed from person to person. Those dissident ideas still exist; the Soviet Union does not.
In 1964, the shah of Iran banished the dangerous cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and banned his works. However, his followers taped his sermons and smuggled them into Iran, leading to his popularity among a rising generation and ultimately setting the stage for the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The shah was exiled to Egypt and soon died, and now the Islamic Republic of Iran, which engages in even more censorship than the shah’s regime (it notoriously shut down phone lines and texting during the 2009 demonstrations, driving Iranians to communicate over Twitter), faces regular convulsions from a restive populace. More recently, Egypt shut down the Internet during the demonstrations against its strongman, Hosni Mubarak. Now Mubarak is gone, while the Internet has been turned right back on again.
Of course, college campuses are not Iran, Egypt, or the Soviet Union (although in some cases, students caught in the Kafkaesque nightmare of campus “justice” could be forgiven for making some pointed comparisons). They certainly have nowhere near the resources necessary to eliminate all exposure to “bad” ideas. So what makes the campus censors think that anything they can do will actually be effective in eliminating hateful or offensive beliefs from our colleges and universities? If students want to hear criticisms (hateful or substantive) of President Obama, affirmative action, or Islamic regimes, all they need to do is turn on the TV, go to a computer, pull it up on their iPhone, or pick up a newspaper. There is certainly nothing that is being said on campuses that isn’t being said in the larger society.
The truth is that the push to punish “hate speech” isn’t really about making campuses hate-free. It’s about exercising raw power rather than persuasion in order to tell people what kind of thinking is right and what kind of thinking is wrong. At Tufts, if you want to take on affirmative action or Islamic extremism, the campus censors demand that you do it their way, or (preferably) no way at all. Do you think you can make a better point using the tools of satire? Too bad, and you’re a harasser if you don’t go along with the demands of the authorities — or the mob.
At N.C. State, the point of exercising the power to censor is, if anything, even creepier. It’s hard to imagine an N.C. State student walking through the Free Expression Tunnel, seeing a scrawled message referring to President Obama as the “n-word,” and being persuaded to think worse of the President rather than to think worse of the scribbler. Instead, the goal is an almost ritualistic desire to do something to purify the campus of its perceived sins. Rather than address the real issue of racism on campus, the wannabe censors wish to apply a band-aid solution that merely covers up potential problems. It may make the censors feel better, but it does precious little to actually improve the lives of minority students. It just warns the racists to keep their heads down and keep their racist behavior secret. It’s hard to see how that helps anyone but the racists.
In the ancient Greek tragedies, hubris always led to a bad result for those afflicted with it. In the case of the campus censors, that could be an expensive lawsuit, personal liability, or simply a campus culture where students are afraid to speak their minds and, as a result, end up with an impoverished educational experience. And how much progress has been made? Speech codes have been around since the 1980s, and a generation later, those in favor of censorship still call our campuses a hotbed of racism and sexism, and call for still more speech restrictions. There’s another (non-Greek) word for the kind of behavior that is defined by trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result: insanity.
Here in NC the educational establishment has unleashed a statewide pre-emptive attack on the perceived threat of teacher layoffs. The notion that educational funding is sacrosanct must be debunked! In fact that notion is the main obstacle to improving education! Norway spends far less and achieves far more.
Anecdote alert from old fogy:
Elementary education in the 1950′s: no teacher’s assistants, no assistant principals, part-time nurse, janitors, school cafeteria workers, minimal school district bureaucracy. Most agree the bedrock of sound education is found in elementary school. Yet despite the “shocking” lack of resources the students of that era achieved the highest SAT scores ever recorded in 1963! And sure we had speech codes back then. They weren’t explicit though. It would be called “civility” today. Decency back then.
Your anecdote prompts one of my own.
The setting, a compulsory Women’s Studies class as a university sophomore. Each student asked his/her political affiliation, among other items meant as “icebreakers” to help us all get to know each other.
Knowing ahead of time to self-identify as conservative would mean ostracism at best, and open antagonism at worst, I said (truthfully) I was a registered Independent.
Instructor: “I’m guessing you voted for Bush.” (Also true.) (But how did she know? They must have GOPdar, I guess.)
All downhill from there, I’m afraid. Despite Herculean efforts, wound up with a C.
Why would any parent pay to have their kid attend (or worse, let them take out a student loan to attend) an institution that requires the kid to take and pass a “women’s studies” indoctrination course?
That truly IS insane!
That particular class fit the schedule at the time; but it was just one of several related electives.
Oh, yeah … and going into debt the rest of your life for the privilege? “Insanity” is about the only way to characterize it.
This article attempts to take a position based on the utility of banning hate speech, but by doing so it automatically buys into leftist assumptions. If you adopt the basic assumptions of your opponent, then you have already lost the debate.
The underlying issue is not about whether “hate speech” exacerbates hate; instead it is about the lack of personal responsibility for dealing with your own feelings. The cultural consensus on personal responsibility has changed drastically over the past few decades, and not for the better.
Progressive influence and control have undermined the foundations of personal responsibility throughout this society. The moral imperative asserting that the internal feelings of someone are the sole responsibility of that person, has been deliberately trashed. By undermining that ethos, it precludes individual responsibility for any subsequent personal decision as to what to do about such feelings, including how or how not to react. This morality between God and the individual is anathema to progressives; it directly interferes with their ability to control each member of society, and to assign blame based on whoever is their enemy-du-jour. Personal responsibility has been diabolically weakened over the decades by the progressive agenda in communications, entertainment, journalism, and education.
Each time a conservative argues about what is or is not “hate speech”, he has already succumbed to leftist assumptions. A true conservative does not believe in the concept of hate speech in the first place. Instead he believes in free speech. The give and take of unfettered speech in a free society is assumed to allow the populace to hear all sides, separate the good from the bad, and then make an informed choice. Note the rebuttal argument in the student newspaper… it attempts to state that assessing and counteracting one viewpoint with another is too onerous a burden for the individual. But this is just another way of saying that the individual is not responsible.
In addition, a preoccupation with feelings induces an incessant incipient narcissism into the the daily thoughts and actions of the populace. This includes the unrealistic expectations of no external actors negatively impacting your internal state, and then calling for their prosecution if you by fiat deem they happen to do so.
Alternatively, a free society of mature citizens is assumed to take on the burden of personal responsibility for both individual feelings and any subsequent actions. A limited government founded on liberty resists any attempt to pre-judge speech, as if its citizens otherwise lack such basic decision-making skills that they need outside authority to insulate precious feelings and thoughts. The only way the latter can be accomplished is to have such authority dictate what feelings and thoughts are permissible, i.e., the thought control of a tyranny.
These traditionalist principles have been destroyed by the left. Add to that the tactics and strategies of cultural Marxism. Whenever a conservative viewpoint attempts to be heard, progressives immediately trot out their premeditated hypocrisy, designed as a power play for the next quasi-legal attempt to gain control of their opponents. In short, the left deliberately incites hatred of the right, based not on facts but on fantasies and meta-narratives. We are now at the point where any attempt to pose alternative viewpoints to the left is labeled hate speech. We see this constantly, such as the shootings in Tucson by Jared Loughner.
When are Conservatives going to wake up and realize that those whom they still suppose to be mere political opponents are instead vicious enemies, who have already battered down the door? We are at a crossroads… conservatives must either decide to act and go on the offense (I recommend organized civil disobedience, including nullification and if necessary, secession), or else sit back, play at online debating societies, and let progressives take over every aspect of their lives.
Suppression of speech doesn’t work very well for very long. Suppression of the speakers works quite well. When you do some reading about the ‘victims’ of witch-hunts, very often you find that witchcraft was just a healthy society’s metaphorical explanation for the elimination of destructive members of the society. These square-pegs-in-round-holes types are like cancer cells in the body. They become un-natural and non-functional, and cause death by displacing normal cells. Life-saving action requires removal by surgery or radiation/chemical poisoning.
I’ve been saying for years that hatespeech/hatecrimes bans and laws are Unconstitutional. People have the right to be a$$holes – and we as a society have the right to judge them for it.
What’s wrong with a “Foxcuckooland Solution” to the alleged problem, at least as regards those institutions that are secret-sector corporations almost as neolegitimate an’ respectable as WalMa®™?
¡Let those who share the tastes of Party Neocomrade R. X. Shibley set up a parallel academic universe where *they* can be the dictators!
Once well under weigh, such a Juggernaut would wipe out the whole Poison-Ivory League in about ten days. If Mlle. de la Main Invisible be on their side, after all, ¿how shall the Kiddie Selfservative Movement fail?
_¡Pues si una hierba del campo, que hoy es y mañana se echa en el horno, Padre Zeus así la viste, ¿cuánto más a vosotros, hombres de poca fe?_
“One got the feeling that the First Amendment was an obstacle that somehow needed to be overcome in our quest for a peaceable society.”
But that’s what liberals do. They now cloak censorship with the word “civility.” So they can say the most outragious things possible against you, but if you dare respond in kind you are being “uncivil.” So long as you agree with liberals, they will embrace you. But if you disagree with them, you are “un-American,” “Brown Shirts,” or “Astroturf.” On and on it goes. The only thing you can do is stand up for what you believe in, no matter how unpopular and regardless of who agrees or disagrees with you. After all, isn’t that what our country is supposed to be all about?
Actually, there is a good and concise statement of the motivation behind the alleged distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech:”
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
Yes, as you say it’s more about control and establishing ‘norms that may not be transgressed’ in order to control those who disagree with the party line. I doubt very much that the desire is to bring harmony, as such.
The examples you give of censored thought that outlived it censors, by the way, obtained a degree of “chic”, of “cool” that probably led to their ‘sustainability’.
Something the other side understands very well.
However, climate sceptics have been able to attain a degree of “cool”, probably as a result of blogging activity and revolutionary chic.
It almost seems the real ideological war comes down to which side can out-”cool” the other?
end up with an impoverished educational experience
I’m getting really, really tired of holding up Universities something sacrosanct. These punks need to go there, learn what they are supposed to learn, and get out in the real world to ply their base level education into experience. I’m completely worn out by all this rhetoric of the sanctity of student expression. Student bodies from the college back down to middle school need to be eliminated. They are nothing but popularity contests. You want to run the school? Graduate and apply to become an administrator at said school. We are puffing these little mush-brains up to the point they think that being master of their insulated little worlds matters a hill of beans.
See even more examples of campus censorship at http://www.thefire.org.
Here’s the short list of schools that FIRE rated as “green light” for free speech: Black Hills State University, Carnegie Mellon University , Cleveland State University, Dartmouth College, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, The College of William & Mary, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, University of Pennsylvania, University of South Dakota, University of Tennessee–Knoxville, University of Utah, and University of Virginia.
Note that out of hundreds of public universities in the country, the only ones on this list are Black Hills State, Cleveland State, Nebraska, Shippensburg, South Dakota, Tennessee-Knoxville, Utah, Virginia, and William & Mary.
If you can’t win, make sure the game isn’t played. They are regular profiles in courage, educators. It works, until you don’t get to make the rules. Then you lose.
“Hate speech” was supported by upper class liberals in the belief that propaganda alone created mass death and Nazism. I wrote about it here: http://clarespark.com/2009/06/04/modernity-and-mass-death/. It is part of a general offensive of “cultural history” to dominate the writing of history and to squash economic factors in the genesis of social movements.
This is an important issue and I hope more Pajamas Media readers take it seriously. It is postmodernism run amok and is profoundly opposed to the writing of a complete history of the past. The campaign against “hate speech” also shows how the issue of mental health can be twisted by political partisans.
“and a generation later, those in favor of censorship still call our campuses a hotbed of racism and sexism, and call for still more speech restrictions.”
I believe those who see racism and sexism in everyone is like the thief – who cannot help but see everyone else in his own light – and views the whole world as thieves.
“Now Mubarak is gone, while the Internet has been turned right back on again.”
Anyone who doesn’t understand why the Libs – and some RINOs (bastards!)(is that hate speech?) wish for a ‘panic button’ for the President – or some other ‘player-to-be-named-later’ with a fist hovering over the internet disconnect button need only see what has happened in Egypt and elsewhere. People there find better – more interesting – and truthful – news on the internet than on their version of the MSM. Organizing protests is easy over the internet – try that with a copier! Had the USSR not disintegrated when it did it certainly would have with the coming of the internet and cell phones. I believe these two items – and who knows what else is coming down the pike? – will make the ‘One World Order’ these libtards dream of that much more difficult to institute – and I thank God for that.
‘Anonymous’
That would be me actually.
Speech codes exist to enforce dogma. Most universities see their mission as indoctrinating the young with the ‘correct’ view of life. And we all know what that view is all about, especially at Ivy League colleges.
And yes, students can get alternative views elsewhere, but college life is very insular and it is there that challenges to the progressive mindset have to be forthcoming.
The conservative students at Tufts and elsewhere need our ongoing support. Certainly, FIRE is to be commended for their efforts but more needs to be done. No conservative or independent thinking student should have to face these ideological bullyies alone.
Depends on who hates the speech, doesn’t it? Palin’s speech targeting generic Democrats was a hate speech, Wis. teachers actually put a target on gov. Walker’s photo was not.
A Mafioso tells his minion to “take care of him” is a threat, whereas a teacher telling gov. Walker “I’m your kid’s teacher, I protect him, I inspire him” is not. Wonder what the kid needs protection from in a Wis. classroom, don’t you?
If they believe in censorship, then that should be applied to their budgets.
I think leftists jumping on the bandwagon to call for “banning hate speech”, or shutting up hate/fear-mongering conservativevs is not because they believe it will reduce hate/violence, but rather “never let a crisis go to waste” in their war to shut-up conservatives.
One of the leftists strongest weapons is that of suppressing speech that opposes their goals. ACORN was born and raised in use of this tactic – crashing City Councils and businesses with mobs that simply shouted down the normal business being carried on, then ‘made demands’ when their opponents exercised misguided politeness and yielded the floor.
Political correctness is another strong weapon – it establishes a long list (as long as the dominant leftists can make it) of ideas that may not be expressed. Thus did Larry Summers lose his job at Harvard.
The best defense is blatant courage: express those forbidden thoughts unapologetically.
What if a progressive wrote the offensive language in the tunnel at North Carolina U in order to get more speech control? What if this happens quite often? This is why Obama sent his organization to Wisconsin to stir up more conflict. What if this is just more “nudging” as in Cass Sunsteins’ methods of reaching goals? I think we are being conned again.
Hubris in ancient Greece was punishable by death. That is how seriously the ancients saw the sin of pride and arrogance.
Hubris was punished by nemesis – sometimes worse than death.
It gets much worse than that. Arizona state has instituted a “civility institute”. If that isn’t an arrow aimed straight at the heart of the First Amendment, I don’t know what is.
I’m waiting patiently for the ACLU to criticize this for its chilling effect on free speech…
“I’m waiting patiently for the ACLU…”
Good thing too. If you were waiting in angst…
(1) Tom Lehrer once said, I hate anyone who does not love his fellow man!” (A satiric attack on the illiberals who do not value free speech.
(2) The legislature of Arizona should deduct from appropriations the money to be spent on this new bureaucracy of a “civility institute” at Arizona State. This institute should be called the “uncivility institute for censorship.”
The interesting thing about the quote from Tom Lehrer is that he is a flaming liberal. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003 saying “I don’t want to satirise George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them.”
Yet even he “gets it.” What does that say about the moronic convergence of dimwits who think that if we just censor the discussion that somehow we’ll be better citizens?
These children were never taught “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt them”
we’re living in a strange world where you can vote when you’re 18,and live on your parents insurance until 26.
Yeah,
I remember the good ole days when I could say whatever I want and have any old racist ideology that I wanted. Now I might actually have to think about what comes out of my mouth before I go running around other people. What we need is the take it back to the way things used to be when anyone who wasn’t white or a man knew their place! Hooray for white privilege and state sanctioned apartheid! Its not like racism in interpersonal and institutional forms are still rampant in our country. Its not like there is a state in our union that has legalized racial profiling in order to keep “illegals” out. People need to quit whining and take personal responsibility for how we treat them as second class citizens. If you are some stupid libtard (really, this is what you came up with?), fascist-brown shirt-feminazi-obammunist- god hating-socialist complaining about challenging the dominant racial order and threatening my white privilege, then you need to back to Communist China. This heres America, and racism is one of the proud traditions of our country.
sincerely,
someone who loses faith in humanity the longer he reads these comments…
Billy, that’s great satire, but a little over the top. If you use a bit more subtlety, you can hit that sweet spot where people reading you might think you’re serious, but aren’t quite sure. As it is, people realize from the start that you can’t possibly be serious, so the needle on the irony needle starts to wane. Still, I give it a solid 7.5 on the satire meter. A little more polishing, and you’ll get some pretty solid marks.
Try this instead for snark, sarcasm, and satire…
Ah yes, here we have Billy Joe Bob (gosh, what a satirical name on the right-wing, I guess that puts them in their place and shows them he’s so smart!). He’s the great white protector of all the minorities. He’s going to make sure that all those little brown people never have to hear a discouraging word, because, oh my god, if they did, they just couldn’t handle it. Any hint of criticism would make them all fall to pieces, because, as all of us progressives know but can’t say out loud, they will always be inferior and will always need our help (thank god, so we will always have a cushy highly-remunerated job guiding them through life here on our progressive plantation).
That means that not only do you evil white male capitalist oppressors not only have to “think twice” about what you say, but we progressives (the great white moral intelligentsia and protectors of all that is good and true on this great mother gaia), are going to outlaw all of your speech ahead of time, so that if you do open your mouth for any reason, we will terminate your employment, put you in jail, have government agencies harass you mercilessly, publicly humiliate you, and then throw you into the inner city where authentic youths will teach you a lesson that (if you survive) you will never forget but so richly deserve, because, after all, the great god of Equality deems it so.
End of snark… unfortunately, recent history shows us that all of those attitudes and their result on our society are already true, to the great misfortune of us all.
I am 57. I remember my father playing against the Negro Leagues. The only times I have heard racist remarks from white people, was about 30-35 years ago and I got the impression that I was not the only person disgusted. Either I travel in a particularly “nice” circle or I’m missing something. I do have to distinction of being the first white person,(person of no color) to be kept out of the college of her dreams through “affirmative action”. The director of admissions gleefully explained it to me. I didn’t find it too “affirmative”.
Actions will always speak louder than words.
It is not sour grapes to conclude that this particular college was not worth attending. Colleges that use any standards other than merit will all eventually go down the tubes, and deservedly so.
“In the Soviet Union, for instance, copy machines were seen as such a dangerous threat to the state (because of how easy they would make the spread of dissident ideas) that the state controlled all of them.”
Don’t single out the Soviets. ‘Twas ever thus, in every place and every era. For example, the original purpose of copyright law in England was to control the spread of the printing press. (Which the ruling classes considered dangerous to their position.)
From Wikipedia:
While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways, which allowed the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licences to trade and produce books.
There’s nothing strange, ironic, or complicated about it. It’s all about the left instituting censorship once in power. Old, old story. Call for freedom and inclusion when left is trying to get in, then redefine “freedom and inclusion” to mean unfreedom and exclusion, and then clamp down. George Orwell diagnosed it best, and the end of the USSR didn’t mean Animal Farm and 1984 were obsolete.
The left knows all about hubris. There were plenty of accusations of it during Bush’s term. They just won’t apply it to themselves.
A censor-in-training at Tufts wrote, “The idea that more speech can be used to combat hate speech operates on the assumption that all speech is equal. That is unrealistic.”
“You believe in freedom of speech for communists because what they say is true. You do *not* believe in freedom of speech for fascists because what they say is a lie.”
–John Howard Lawson, head of the Hollywood division of the Communist Party USA, speaking to the rest of the Hollywood Ten during their preparation for testimony, in answer to a hypothetical prosecution ploy, “Do you believe in free speech for fascists?”
Not all speech is protected, even if the line is often difficult to draw. Do you really think that someone should be able to say ANYTHING he wants to your daughter when she is off at college? Do you believe that there is such a thing as bullying?
Do a lot of speech codes get heavy-handed and too-inclusive? Yes. BUT modern society rightfully recognizes that words ARE weapons and you can carry them, but you many be prosecuted if you use them recklessly or hatefully.
The Westboro Baptist folks are a case in point here.
What point are you trying to make here? That hate speech is in fact something we can prosecute? I disagree. Hate is a state of mind, not a fact. If we insist on prosecuting someone for thinking the wrong things, then we might as well call it a day and give up on free expression.
High D-White.
“… but you many be prosecuted if you use them recklessly or hatefully.”
Could a couple of speech cops in dresses with hairy legs be sent over to Tweedland?
For whatever reason, your speech is “recklessly or hatefully”. Because someone said so. Probable cause, whatever. Now prove your innocence.
Hey Ping Pong Tongue, if Hypothetical Daughter of Ping Pong Tongue is 18 years old and goes to college, is she an adult? If Hypothetical Daughter of Ping Pong Tongue is 18 years old and works at a car wash is she an adult? If the so called “bad” words transpire at one location or the other, does daughter/college trump the daughter/car wash? What age is appropriate as a cutoff point?
Come to think of it, are you in need of speech/thought protection? Would you rather be protected or have arrest power? Would you use a pair of vise grips…??? to…???
No need to answer Red Pencil Neck. You may jeopardize your freedom. Nail the Ping Pong Tongue down!
And he says, “Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan”.
My sons would more likely be the ones violating the code. I will have to let fathers of daughters speak on this one.
As for yourself, there’s something that strikes me about you as a man with no children. So it goes.
“So it goes”.
“I will have to let fathers of daughters speak on this one.”
Are you talking D-White sharia or just plain old normal sharia?
Gee Red Pencil Neck, you must be the only person in the whole world who has proper girl morals. As if a woman working at a car wash is…??? What? Or somebody violates D-White “code”. Must be nice when the whole world boils down to a tweed lined faculty lounge mind. Lounge…
So the The Ping Pong Tongue paddles on with random caroms – 3 daughters, Brown Ball Award recipient.
“I will have to let…” How nice, permission and everything! Is the Pick It Fence rebelling against the closet totalitarian load it is carrying?
“So it goes”.
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone.
“So the The Ping Pong Tongue paddles on with random caroms – 3 daughters, Brown Ball Award recipient.”
Your daughters or mine?
I can’t remember who it was but somebody (perhaps on this site) once noted that speech codes exist not just to control speech but to humiliate the (non) speaker. When someone wants to express a thought in cogent language and does not due to the self-censorship imposed by the code then that person is not merely silenced, they are humiliated. Self-consorship is the continuous “knout on the nape od the neck” that silently reminds the individual that they are not free in the essential aspects of liberty such as thought and speech. The internal acceptance of the fact that one is “knuckling under” invariably brings humilation.
From what I have seen of speech-code enforcers this is the real goal. Women’s Studies departmetns take an almost hysterical delight in tracking down “offensive” speech in ways that woul make Cotton Mather proud. Inquisitional penalties and “re-education” almost invariably follow. This is done not to promote “civility” or even “good manners” but in order to demonstrate that it CAN BE DONE! It is an expression of power for it’s own sake.