Update | FIRE’s Robert Shibley has put up a response to this post. My reply to his response can be found here.
There’s something I find very weird about the campus-free-speech crowd centered around FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).
Every time a new example of incendiary, bigoted campus speech hits the news, the FIRE folks rise up to defend the speaker’s right to express his or her views — as, in my opinion, they should. Like them, I’m generally opposed to campus speech codes and in favor of the principle that more speech is the best remedy for bad speech.
But see what I did there? I called bad speech “bad speech.” Because whether I think speech needs defending has nothing to do with whether I consider that speech obnoxious. I’m happy to describe bad speech as bad speech in the course of saying it’s entitled to First Amendment protection.
Contrast that with Robert Shibley of FIRE’s comments on Alexandra Wallace’s racist YouTube rant:
“It is easy to see why Asian students in particular, and others as well, might find it offensive—although in my opinion it is really pretty tame, as far as Internet rants go.”
It’s easy to see why some other people might find this speech offensive, he says, though he himself considers it “pretty tame.” And how does Shibley summarize the video itself? In it, he says, Wallace
“claims that the ‘hordes’ of Asian students at UCLA (UCLA’s undergraduate population is about 37 percent Asian and Pacific Islander) cause various annoyances like loudly talking on their cell phones in the library and having their extended families come over and do their chores for them.”
Kudos to Shibley for quoting the word “hordes,” I suppose, but I find it curious that he leaves out the other two most inflammatory elements of the video — Wallace’s racist “ching chong” caricature of “Asian” languages, and her mockery of students who might have been attempting to reach family members in the path of the Japanese tsunami.
Blogger Matthew Hurtt — who approvingly quotes Shibley — takes a slightly different tack, arguing in essence that if you take out the bigotry from Wallace’s rant, it’s really not all that bigoted, but the minimizing effect of his rhetoric is similar. Tellingly, for the epigram of his blogpost, Hurtt invokes Voltaire:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend – to the death – your right to say it.”
I say “tellingly” because Hurtt gets the quote wrong.
The “defend to the death” line originates with Voltaire biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who summarized Voltaire’s position as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire himself phrased it even more strongly, in a 1770 letter: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” [Update: That quote is fake too. See final update below for details.]
See the difference?
Alexandra Wallace’s speech was detestable. If you’re going to defend it on principle, there’s no reason not to admit that.
Update | Seems like I gave Hurtt too much credit. Responding to this post on Twitter, he says he doesn’t consider Wallace’s rant bigoted at all. Glad to have that cleared up, I suppose.
Second Update | FIRE’s letter to UCLA on the Wallace dustup does a much better job of threading the needle on these issues than Shibley’s blogpost. In it, they provide a dispassionate account of the video’s content (including the “ching chong” business, though omitting the “tsunami” joke), then explaining why they consider it deserving of First Amendment protection even if it is judged to be “hateful” or “offensive.” Law professor Eugene Volokh goes even further, defending Wallace’s free speech rights even as he characterizes the video as “bigoted” “moronic” “nonsense.”
2015 Update | My corrected version of the Voltaire quote is itself a fake. Oops. Read the whole story here.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Jeremy
I don’t think it’s weird. FIRE has a singular purpose — to protect free speech in higher education. It doesn’t help them to make judgments about the speech they’re trying to protect, because anyone who disagrees with their judgment might then disagree with their main point. They’re trying to convince as broad an audience as possible that speech rights need to be protected. It’s easier to do that without taking a stand on the rightness/wrongness of the speech in question.
Personally, I agree with FIRE that the threats of physical violence Alexandra Wallace received are more egregious than what she said in her video.
March 16, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Angus Johnston
I can respect that position, Jeremy, and as I said in the update I think FIRE’s letter to UCLA was a lot more reasonable than Shibley’s blogpost.
The reason I think that is that Shibley did exactly what you’re saying is unhelpful — he made judgments about the speech he was defending. Specifically, he characterized it as “pretty tame.”
I’ve been tied up with other things tonight, but I’ll have a post up expanding on this idea in the morning.
March 17, 2011 at 12:15 am
AsianAmericanCollegeStudent
(I’m reposting this from another section of this site because I missed this article and appreciate it, I have come under a lot of heat and vitriol defending Miss Wallace’s right to free speech elsewhere as though I’m defending her video even when I explicitly state that I am not)
I agree that some people (many comedians, shows, and other forms of media) use racial humor as satire, or social criticism, to expose prejudices and generalizations, or to poke fun at stereotypes illuminating how ridiculous they are. But we have to be careful not to lump it all under one umbrella as “just a joke.” German sociologists, while watching the decent of their own country into the holocaust, described official meetings where anti-semitic rants took place as “organized laughter.”
At the same time, discrimination against Asian Americans has remained largely, under the radar. Margaret Cho, a Korean American comedian was granted her own TV show and the producers hired a consultant to teach her to act more Asian because they feared the audiences would not identify her as Asian because she did not fit the stereotype.
I do not condone Miss Wallace’s actions or words. But I think the responding violence is far beyond what her actions deserve and detracts from those that could illuminate her and others that feel the same. All this violence in response, all these “slut” and “whore” and “stupid white girl” do nothing but further the rift. It’s like turning on your hose to stop a flood.
And though many people don’t like the fact that “freedom of speech” comes up in this discourse, it is essential. It is not in defense of her actions, but in defense of all of our ability to disagree when we see something is not right and needs to be corrected. And in order for all of us to be able to disagree with videos or celebrities or articles or talk show hosts like Rush or Godfrey or Wallace (or even the President), we have to ensure that right is equal and follow the laws set up around those rights. To violate those sets up a sad precedent that may violate those freedoms for ourselves. And in the long run… wouldn’t you rather people who have these ideas speak up so we can correct them rather than allow racism to become a quiet insidious monster?
I know I’ve responded to many of these comments and spoken up a lot on here but this hits very close to home for me.
March 17, 2011 at 6:19 am
Grant
Angus Johnston. You are incredible. Kudos sir.
March 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm
National Youth Rights Association - Age of Reason: the NYRA Blog
[…] There is an interesting back and forth going on right now between two great advocates for student rights, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and StudentActivism.net. Both seem to agree that offensive speech on campus needs to be protected. At issue is whether it must also be condemned. Roger Shibley of FIRE says no, Angus Johnston of Student Activism says yes. […]
March 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm
On Alexandra Wallace, incivility, and responding to hate speech
[…] You can condemn it as such while simultaneously defending Wallace’s right to say it. In fact, you should definitely do this. Death threats are never ok. Period. Responses that are racist or sexist or any other -ist are also […]
March 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Cyn
I don’t think that threats of violence are ever justifiable, nor do I approve of the body/slut shaming nature of many comments, but I do not agree with Wallace’s statements, and do think that they qualify as hate speech and thus do not fall under protected speech.
I think that her comments are offensive and hurtful and harassing. They’re unproductive, they’re ignorant, and they are bigoted.
March 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Why Doesn't FIRE Condemn This Viewpoint I Hate? - FIRE
[…] of defending the fundamental right of Americans to say such things. That suggestion has been raised with regard to my blog post from yesterday about the UCLA "Asians in the Library" video, […]
March 17, 2011 at 9:17 pm
AsianAmericanCollegeStudent
I do not feel her video does not fall under hate speech. I don’t condone it, I found her words offensive.
Hate speech:
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.
March 17, 2011 at 9:47 pm
AsianAmericanCollegeStudent
correction: I do not feel her video falls under hate speech* sorry
March 18, 2011 at 1:06 am
AsianAmerican
The freedoms of citizenship are protected under the US Constitution as long as the person does not infringe others’ rights. And yet, Alexandra Wallace did not only providing a bad speech that infringe others’ rights but also the Constitution itself, where the body of laws stated in almost every Amendment that there’s a restriction in which a person is criticized or judged through his or her ethnicity, religion, and gender.
March 18, 2011 at 2:48 am
shouldbesleeping
It seems that it’s ok to be racist and express racism as long as you don’t discriminate. For example: Lets say that Mr.Z is racist towards race R. Mr.Z works as an University enrollment staff. Now as long as Mr.Z continues to accept race R in to the University, he is not discriminating, even though he dislikes race R.
So even though Miss Wallace is stereotyping Asians as having no manners, she is technically not discriminating Asians from anything. Of course people also have the right to rebuttal her stereotypes. Generally, racism is a social faux pas, it’s frowned on. Miss Wallace has exposed herself to society as a racist. Society can frown on her, but society can’t discriminate against her for being a racist.
Although she possibly can be fired for being racist. If by her being racist discriminates against the employer to acquire customers. Oddly does that mean UCLA can expel her if her racism discriminates UCLA from enrolling Asians? OK, I’m going to stop here and let the professionals take over.
March 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Jumpman
I’m finding a lot of this free speech discussion misplaced. It seems that many are more worried about her freedom to say what she wants than the fact that she said some pretty racist things. And the reason this troubles me is because none of her First Amendment rights have been violated. She has not been thrown in jail. UCLA while reprimanding her publicly, has not taken any disciplinary actions against her. So freedom of speech should not even be part of the discussion at this point.
I get the feeling that those that jump on the “freedom of speech” bandwagon before it is an issue in these instances are really advocating the actual message rather than protecting the right of someone to say it. They are hiding behind the concept of “freedom of speech” to allow for bigoted, hateful speech that at the very least they don’t disagree with and at its worst they actually want to promote.
I defend the right of people to be able to speak their minds and express their opinions without fear of persecution from the government. But I feel that many use the concept of “freedom of speech” as a rhetorical strategy that is meant to stifle criticism of what someone actually says. That is, in the instance of Alexandra Wallace, that it is wrong to criticize or condemn her because she has the right to say what she wants (I am not saying that people here or that FIRE are doing this, but I have seen this type of argumentation a lot in regards to this matter).
And let us not forget that freedom of speech was meant to allow for the expression of opinions and ideas and the presentation of information that promotes the overall well being of people within US society. It was not intended to allow for hurtful and hateful speech. But because of the difficulties in determining what is acceptable speech and who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not, we have to allow for speech that is also hateful and bigoted. So to ensure that we can protect speech that promotes the well being of people we have to accept and allow for speech that does not. Having said that, however, it feels like many that are quick to defend free speech in these kinds of instances seem to forget what the true purpose of having freedom of speech is to begin with.
March 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm
This Week in the News: UCLA Launches, Ends Harassment Investigation of 'Asians in the Library' YouTube Video - FIRE
[…] the perspective of a recent college graduate. Elsewhere, Student Activism blogger Angus Johnston disapproved of what he perceived as FIRE's failure to sufficiently condemn the content of the speech. Robert […]
March 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Alexandra Wallace Excuses Herself Before A Racist Rant; FIRE is Urged To Excuse Itself For Analyzing the Rant | Popehat
[…] think that’s obvious. It’s not. Blogger Angus Johnson at the blog Student Activism criticized FIRE for failing to condemn Wallace sufficiently in analyzing the First Amendment implica… In fact, by his title, Johnson suggests that a failure to condemn speech sufficiently is the […]
April 12, 2011 at 8:40 am
Jay Knott
Alexandra Wallace has been driven out of college by death threats, and you-all are arguing about what exactly Voltaire said. This is the tip of an iceberg of hate, stirred up by minority activists. When a black woman falsely accused the lacrosse players at Duke of rape, over eighty professors agreed. They made it explicit they weren’t too bothered about evidence because of the race, gender and alleged ‘privilege’ of the accused students. The president of the university agreed, as did almost all the national media. Since then, there have been incidents of swastikas at numerous campuses, and a white hood in UCLA library. Despite a minority woman admitting she put it there, the administration subjected the white students to a campaign of guilt. The violence is the inevitable consequence.
April 17, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Hillarious Times
Bunch of pansies, everyone knows it’s ok to call someone a Cracker, Honky, White Trash, Redneck, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Call someone the N word and it’s a hate crime.