Welcome to Massachusetts
No place for hate. No place for teaching about hate, either. Boston Herald:
Free-speech advocates are calling on Brandeis University to apologize to a longtime professor who was disciplined after he allegedly told students in his class on Latin American politics that Mexican migrants are sometimes pejoratively referred to as “wetbacks.”
The university accused Donald Hindley of making statements that violated its policies on discrimination and harassment, Hindley said in a statement Wednesday.
Neither the letter nor Hindley’s statement specified what he said or is accused of saying. But in a press release this week, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said Hindley turned to the group for help, insisting that he criticized the use of the word “wetbacks” as a racial slur, only to have the university threaten to fire him unless he agreed to allow a temporary “monitor” in his class.
“It’s like being in some Woody Allen film. It’s a self-parody of political correctness,” said Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer who sits on FIRE’s advisory board. “And I’m sure the people who disciplined this professor are some of the same people who carry on about the Bush administration being Kafka-esque.”
Remind me to nominate that one for Quote of the Decade.
Brandeis spokesman Dennis Nealon declined to comment.
Hindley was not allowed to appeal the provost’s decision and has refused to attend sensitivity training, said his lawyer, Andrew Good.
“I have been persecuted for some years because I am outspoken,” Hindley said, “ . . . and this is vindictive persecution for my outspokenness.”
Students in Hindley’s class staged a sit-in, criticizing Brandeis for not involving them in its investigation. And the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities lambasted the Waltham school for its handling of the case.
I’ve always preferred “illegal alien,” the official and legal designation of a person who illegally crosses a border regardless of their intentions. But that’s also considered a pejorative these days. “Illegal immigrant” or “undocumented worker,” nouns intended to imply legitimacy of intent and action, are preferred and accepted across a broad swath of the media and political spectrum. Advocates for people who cross illegally into the United States have succeeded in short order in standardizing politicized speech that endorses their assumptions and advances their agenda.
Universities have long stifled free speech, using the specter of offensiveness to squelch undesireable opinions and individuals. This case at Brandeis seems a little ridiculous. But as we’ve seen lately, the lexicon of what is considered hate speech is dramatically expanding. Mitt Romney learned that “tar baby,” used to describe a sticky issue in an utterly non-racial context, not even about a person, is hate speech. Bill Clinton, “fairy tale,” used in an utterly non-racial context in political discussion … hate speech.
Not only can certain words not be used, but certain conversations cannot be had, whether race is at issue or not. It’s not about a forbidden class of words. It’s about a protected class of individuals, who may not be criticized.
It would be nice to think we could have a woman and a black man running for president, and even becoming president in this country without having all political speech vetted and large parts of it muzzled. But we are not sufficiently advanced in this country. Racism is alive and well, and can be quite useful. The issue was taken out for a test drive in the Democratic primary recently, found to be useful in planting doubt, driving wedges, changing the subject. The effectiveness no doubt will be examined as the primary continues, particularly in today’s South Carolina contest.
Look for a reprise when an old white man finds himself up against a black man or a woman in the general election. Any reference to lack of experience? Hate speech. Any reference to inadequacy or absurdity of political proposals? Hate speech. The race card will be played, not by racist Republicans cynically using coded speech to point out what everyone already knows … Obama is black, Hillary is a woman … but by liberal racists and sexists seeking to smear and destroy the GOP opposition. We saw the dress rehearsal, ironically, in Massachusetts 2006 race between a black man and a woman, when Republican Kerry Healey was lambasted for daring to point out Democrat Deval Patrick’s history of being soft on crime.
Volokh Conspiracy on Hindley, Brandeis here and here.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:57 am on Saturday, January 26, 2008
3 Responses to “Welcome to Massachusetts”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Wetbacks swam the Rio Grande to get into the country illegally.
It is (was) a derogatory term.
All the holier than thou types infesting universities and regularly getting their shorts in a knot over utterances of others while bringing education to its knees in the name of political correctness are simply…
dipsticks
And dumb dipsticks, at that.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
woohoo, wordpress has recognized me!!!
It is past time, way past time, to prohibit the use of the word ’sensitive’. It has morphed its way over the cliff to mean “good”. There, down in the darkness of idiocy, it resides with ‘racist’, which now means ‘evil.’
January 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
[...] Welcome to Massachusetts [...]