“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches.” – Ray Bradbury
Ken White at POPEHAT has a nice piece on the Wesleyn brouhaha. The school paper’s arrangement of words displeased some in the college community. The “unhappy” folk started a petition with a list of demands.
What is it they want?
Tighter student government oversight of the publication (state control), mandatory diversity training of the publication’s staff at least once every semester (re-education camps), and space for sanctioned speech on the front page (state-controlled press/propaganda).
As Ken Observes, while they are to be applauded for being open about their censorship, there ought to be a consequence.
Wesleyan is a private school; they can abandon basic notions of free expression and turn their school into a training ground for ideological conformity if they want to. But isn’t it thoughtful of these students and alumni to say exactly what they want, without equivocation? They’ve thoughtfully provided a list of people never to hire.
Signers also agree to boycott the paper until their demands are met, which includes “recycling.” Ken explains.
What does “recycling” mean? It means taking and throwing away copies of a free student newspaper so that others can’t read content you don’t like, and it’s a nationwide problem, as the Student Press Law Center documents.
Recycling is the modern euphemism for book burning. These words, so arranged, are not suitable for consumption because you or I may be incapable of understanding why we should not see these words or could be poisoned by incidental contact. So it is their obligation to protect us from this unsanctioned and inappropriate speech. It shall be removed and recycled before a stray eye is cast upon it.
Do they get a brown shirt when they sign the petition?
To sum up, college students on a renowned college campus (at more than one of them, no doubt), a so-called bastion of modern enlightenment, are paying $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 a year to learn speech policing—smiley-faced fascism.
Ken includes a link to words by the college president defending free speech.
Debates can raise intense emotions, but that doesn’t mean that we should demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable. As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended. We certainly have no right to harass people because we don’t like their views. Censorship diminishes true diversity of thinking; vigorous debate enlivens and instructs.
We had one of those in New Hampshire recently when University of New Hampshire president Mark Huddelston came out for free speech in opposition to the UNH Language-Free Bias Guide.
“While individuals on our campus have every right to express themselves, I want to make it absolutely clear that the views expressed in this guide are NOT the policy of the University of New Hampshire. I am troubled by many things in the language guide, especially the suggestion that the use of the term ‘American’ is misplaced or offensive. The only UNH policy on speech is that it is free and unfettered on our campuses. It is ironic that what was probably a well-meaning effort to be ‘sensitive’ proves offensive to many people, myself included.
As observed then, while a speech or a letter or an official release in defense of free expression makes for good press (and keeps the endowment fat and happy), as long as the social-justice educational apparatus (curriculum) continues full steam ahead, at full tuition pricing, you are being fiscally rewarded for recruiting and training the foot-soldiers of an anti-free speech movement; the next generation of experts, educators, and university presidents.
Free Speech will suffer for it.
Update- I added the quote at the beginning, culled from this excellent article shared by Susan Olsen.
