Hi Y'all,
Rick Adams wrote:
> 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.
Based on your definitions, the statements made (for those who have been following
this thread) fit the definition of derogatory comments. They were not bolstered by
any facts or supportive data (not even anecdotal). They were grounded in
misinformation, myth, and stereotype.
>
>
> 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.
Nope, never stated that. In fact, Israel has never been the focus of discussion in
this thread. The only reference was the subject heading and a misattribution of
responsibility to the State of Israel for decisions made by a private organization.
Never has any behavior of the State of Israel been discussed in this thread. You
might want to follow a thread before you post your comments. I know you meant well
and I understand your point but you are raising points not based on information.
> 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.
If you had read the posts, you would have known that I acknowledged mistakes and
errors that had been made. However, the discussion is based on the general tenor of
multiple posts that have nothing to do with current relations in Middle East
politics. Rather they fit the "Blacks are less honest" genre you described
previously.
> 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).
>
Most survivors do not and the vast majority of Holocaust scholars do not
particularly in relation to recent student newspaper ads, the inclusion of Holocaust
denial "journals" in library collections, or courses constructed on the idea that
the Holocaust never occurred. But I have my hands full with discussion right now so
I am not going to entertain this debate. I suggest you post this to H-Holocaust
discussion list for feedback - http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~holoweb.
> > or "Jews because they believe themselves to be the chosen
> > people feel they have the right to oppress others"
>
> Ask a Palestinian!
However, the statement is still based in misinformation. The situation between the
State of Israel and Palestine is far more complex and yes, the Israeli government
and individual Jews have engaged in behaviors that I have serious difficulties with
and which are repugnant. But that is not the statement made in the post.
This statement indicts all Jews (like "All Blacks are dishonest") as viewing
themselves superior and guilty of oppression. It is based on a deliberate
misinterpretation of the phrase "chosen people". Thus, it fits your definition as
a derogatory comment.
> 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.
Not when grounded in data and research. Thus, I can speak to the atrocities
committed by the Nazis. I also believe it is important to discuss individual
behaviors and examine the individuals involved as individuals. It is too easy to
stereotype all Nazi's as crazed psychopaths obediently following Hitler. However,
this fails to represent the complexity of motivations, behaviors, and individuals
involved as perpetrators of the Holocaust.
> 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.
We should also be mature enough to state that offensive material and statements are
offensive. I believe that silence can be destructive and I believe that we have an
obligation to speak out in the face of racism, sexism, etc. Unfortunately, in the
workplace, in professional meetings (the list is an extension of that definition),
and in the classroom, a destructive environment is created if individuals are
allowed to make derogatory comments unchallenged. I believe there are even legal
ramifications of such behavior (any legal scholars on the list?).
> 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.
Gee and I thought that is basically what I have repeatedly done. See the recent
thread concerning "the chosen people".
> Your way
And don't you all know how much I hate it when people tell me what way I think and
advocate and they get it wrong!
>
> would stop hate speech publicly, but foster greater animosity privately
I do think there are forums where hate speech is inappropriate - for example, the
classroom.
>
> Mine (I believe) would permit it publicly, but rapidly "defuse" its
> effectiveness by proving it wrong through open discourse.
I have repeated used this strategy. Again, you might want to follow the threads
(some of which date back to my entire time on the list). At some point, I move
beyond that strategy and state that I find the overall prejudice offensive.
> > 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?
Check your mailbox.
Additionally, I meant to say that they "only function to flame . . . ." . I clearly
type too fast at times. Usually, I catch when I've added or omitted endings to
words. Regardless, it is my belief, even if it is mine alone, that hate speech
incites hate.
> > 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.
Reread my above statement. I provide a range from scientific to a media statement.
Clearly in the religion thread, all sorts of texts and works were being cited.
> 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?
This really is off topic. The point was that not even a "hate newspaper" was cited
in the posts under discussion. Not even a serious question was being asked. Rather
only derogatory statements were being made under the guise of questions.
> 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.
Free speech is designed to protect ideas (and I too am a fierce advocate of free
speech) However, *all* speech is not included under such a definition. If someone
verbally sexually harasses me in the workplace, their behavior is not protected as
free speech. Hate speech walks a fine line. I certainly support their right to
publish and to hold rally's etc. as long as they are not inciting to riot,
encouraging violence, etc. I do not support them coming into my classroom to
present their ideas as fact. This is no longer a public forum.
Professional discussion lists are an in-between category. Are they a public forum?
If they are, then members of the KKK are welcome to join and regularly post (I would
be distressed to see this occur on TIPS). Or are they private as funded by Division
Two? In which case the amount of derogatory statements that are permitted can be
moderated.
I think we share some agreement on many issues. Much of this has been confused as
it is apparent that you have not followed some of the posts in recent weeks. Always
a difficult task which teaching, taking classes, conducting research, etc. etc. etc.
Regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
