| 来源类型 | Article |
| 规范类型 | 评论 |
| A half-hearted cheer for Northeastern University’s tepid defense of ‘hate’ | |
| Frederick M. Hess; Grant Addison | |
| 发表日期 | 2018-06-21 |
| 出版年 | 2018 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | In a controversy that wasn’t, earlier this month Suzanna Walters, professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to ask: “Why can’t we hate men?” Heavy on hashtags and light on lucidity, the resulting piece read more like a parody of feminism than the handiwork of a serious scholar: Vastly more interesting than the piece itself, however, was the reaction it garnered — or, more accurately, didn’t. There was a bit of online harrumphing, and some wonderment that the Washington Post — self-styled champion of tolerance — would proudly feature an essay promulgating gender-based hatred. But unlike the cases of many other professors — Randa Jarrar, George Cicarriello-Maher, Bruce Gilley, etc. — the would-be controversy dissipated before it had even picked up steam. There are several reasons for this. One was that Walters had the good sense to channel her hatred at men — as opposed to, say, women, transgendered individuals, or another group that academics find sympathetic. Another important reason, however, was the response by Walters’s institution, Northeastern University. In a statement, Northeastern spokeswoman Shannon Nargi lightly rebuffed Walters’s message while defending her right to ramble dyspeptically on gender issues: This statement echoes Northeastern’s excellent academic-freedom policy, which subscribes to the American Association of University Professors’s 1940 statement on academic freedom and reads, in part: Northeastern’s stance deserves commendation. Professors should be able to make controversial arguments without fear of institutional sanction — even if some observers might regard those arguments as repugnant. Defending academic freedom also seems to be tactically prudent; in this case, the online outrage mob quickly moved on to rubberneck the next dumpster fire. Other colleges and universities would do well to take note: By maintaining a firm policy of academic freedom to fall back upon, and refusing to vacillate or kowtow, Northeastern was able to avoid becoming the next battleground in the culture wars. That said, it’s important to put this incident in context. Many have rightly wondered whether someone making the opposite argument would have enjoyed the same staunch support that Walters received. Doubtful. As we have seen time and again, certain “controversial” statements are more equally protected than others. And, of course, there’s also the question of whether a teacher who openly professes her hatred of men can educate her male students in a fair and unbiased manner. Setting such speculation aside, there is one clear double-standard at work here: If Walters were a Northeastern student and had made the same argument in a gender-studies classroom, her speech would have been deemed harassment under university policy. The Northeastern code of student conduct expressly prohibits “harassment,” “bullying,” or “abuse of others” motivated “in whole or part by prejudice toward an individual’s or group’s real or perceived race, color, religion, religious creed, genetics, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, veteran status, or disability.” And, if a student had written for a blog or campus publication what Walters published in a national newspaper, they would have run afoul of additional policies. The Northeastern student handbook prohibits university computer and network resources from being used to “harass, threaten, defame, slander, or intimidate any individual or group” or “generate and/or spread intolerant or hateful material, which in the sole judgment of the University is directed against any individual or group, based on race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation,” and so on. That last caveat — “which in the sole judgment of the University” — is particularly Orwellian. Northeastern deserves credit for defending the right of its faculty to preach noxious doctrines. But it’s equally important to note the institution’s faint-heartedness when it comes to protecting student speech. After all, how fruitful can classroom learning really be if students are barred from engaging in the same types of arguments that their instructors are free to make? When such freedoms are reserved for those at the lectern, the mission of higher education is compromised and free inquiry descends into indoctrination. |
| 主题 | Education ; Higher Education |
| 标签 | Academic freedom ; First Amendment ; Free speech ; Higher education |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/a-half-hearted-cheer-for-northeastern-universitys-tepid-defense-of-hate/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/264260 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Frederick M. Hess,Grant Addison. A half-hearted cheer for Northeastern University’s tepid defense of ‘hate’. 2018. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
