Linda wrote:
> I guess Rick that I am unclear how you separate an anti-Semitic
> or racist idea with a derogatory comment about a particular
> group as it was presented in this case. When someone makes a
> claim based in stereotype and prejudice (with no data -
> scientific or otherwise - to support their statement) that is
> harmful to the group in question is this an "idea" or a
> "derogatory comment". When the individual repeatedly makes such
> statements, should others not object.
To me, an idea is a concept of general applicability. That is, it can be
discussed rationally, demonstrated to be true or false by recourse to
facts or research, etc. Essentially, it is the basis for a
dialog--regardless of how potentially offensive it may be.
A derogatory comment, on the other hand, is not based on concepts but on
a desire to attack. It is not subject to discussion (i.e., it is
completely normative in nature) and is designed to offend deliberately,
rather than peripherally.
To give an example of each (using potentially offensive concepts): If I
state that: "Black Americans commit far more crimes of violence per
capita, particularly murders, than do white Americans," and thus suggest
that crime control measures should be more heavily weighted in the
direction of that group, I am stating an idea. It may be offensive, but it
can be discussed rationally with recourse to criminological and criminal
justice research and data. If, on the other hand, I state that "Blacks are
far more dishonest than whites," I am making a derogatory statement that
is neither arguable in terms of research and facts, nor open to
intellectual discussion. What is the difference? In the former case, my
statement can be made by reference to statistical data, and hence can be
taken to be an opinion based on information. In the latter case, my
statement can only be taken to represent prejudice, intended to apply to
all blacks, not to a sub-set of the group, and represents belief, not
opinion.
While I haven't been following this entire thread, what I have seen of it
tended to indicate to me that the statements being made were far more
expressions of ideas than any deliberate attempt to denigrate a group as a
whole.
Prejudice is a funny term. It can just as easily be used to refer to the
person who _support_ a group beyond provable levels as it can to defame
one. For example, you demonstrate strong support for the belief that
Israel is a nation with high moral and ethical principles. To a Jordanian
or Iraqi that may be a very prejudical view that, from his or her
perspective, is offensive to their own people. If it is wrong to refer to
Jews in general (or Israelis in particular) from a negative perspective,
it is equally wrong to do so from a positive one. But, of course, if that
were the rule we would find it difficult to continue any meaningful dialog
at all.
I'm a staunch opponent of Political Correctness in any form at all--I
sincerely believe it is far more belittling to _any_ group (and
intellectually limiting to academics) to limit speech than to encourage
it. We have something to learn from everyone; even the holocaust deniers
have a right to be heard--and disproven (a fact, incidently, a close
friend who is the sole survivor of his family from the death camps agrees
with totally).
> For example, what if an individual repeatedly made statements
> such as "Jews are involved in an international conspiracy to
> take over the world and are thus parasites"
That is derogatory (unless the person cites "evidence" for the claim, of
course). But no such statement was made here.
> or "Jews because they believe themselves to be the chosen
> people feel they have the right to oppress others"
Ask a Palestinian!
That's a political view and, provided it is limited to a clear reference
to Israel as a nation, rather than to non-Israeli Jews, it is perfectly
appropriate. Such a statement can be discussed in terms of facts and clear
empirical evidence, and does not represent prejudice absent of any
specific references (i.e., the West Bank, Palestine, Lebannon, etc.).
> Are these ideas or a derogatory comments?
One of each.
> I would argue that they are derogatory comments designed to
> inflame the fires of hatred. They denigrate a group, have
> no basis in reality, and are based on negative stereotypes.
Then would you agree that negative references to Nazis, the PLO, the KKK,
or other such groups are equally derogatory and have no more legitimacy
than do the others? If not, you are demonstrating prejudice yourself. If
so, your argument would stiffle any form of free speech at all. Either is
inappropriate to an academic mailing list.
If it is as easy as you feel it to be to "inflame the fires of hatred" in
a group such as this one, then we are really too immature to be
communicating about meaningful subjects with one another anyway. As
college instructors, we should be skilled enough at critical thinking to
differentiate for ourselves between facts and opinions, and we should be
able to read potentially offensive material without having our basic
values changed.
The greatest area in which we differ is not whether prejudice should
exist, but how to deal with it. You believe that the response to offensive
comments about minorities is to suppress the speech, I believe it is to
encourage it and to challenge it with facts and rationality. Your way
would stop hate speech publicly, but foster greater animosity privately.
Mine (I believe) would permit it publicly, but rapidly "defuse" its
effectiveness by proving it wrong through open discourse. Either method
may work, but mine does have the advantage of not limiting the free speech
of the citizenry.
> The posts in question only functioned to flame intolerance and promote
> prejudice/discrimination.
But isn't that your opinion alone? How many other readers have stated
that the statements were prejudiced or inappropriate?
> To say these are inappropriate in the workplace, classroom, or
> a discussion list is not censorship in my view. We are not
> discussing a body of research or even a newspaper article.
We weren't doing so in the case of Religion versus Science, either. By
the same standard, scientific (read: provable) statements are appropriate
here, but those refering to religious values (which cannot be proven by
research) are not.
As far as a newspaper article goes, doesn't that depend on the newspaper?
What if someone were to quote WAR (the White Aryan Resistance newspaper)
in the group? Would it be inappropriate where the New York Times was not?
Isn't that a matter of personal belief (which is not a legitimate grounds
for limitations in a scientific group)? Personally, I would hate to see
WAR cited--despite the fact that I share it with my minority groups
students (as an example of the nature of prejudice in the US), it contains
a great deal of offensive material (my students, btw, are required to sign
an agreement that they will NOT share it with minors before I permit them
to borrow copies for their research or for use in their term papers).
Again, Linda, I hope you realize that I'm not attempting to either
justify prejudice or to attack you personally. I simply feel that one of
the most important of the few remaining rights US citizens have is the
right to free speech, and I will _always_ respond strongly to any
suggestion that it be limited in any manner. That is, of course, a
personal belief, but it is every bit as valid as those held by others who
believe in regulating the content of communications to protect minority
groups.
Peace,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
