On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Rick Adams wrote:
> My problem with limiting words is not that they can cause emotional harm,
> no rational person would disagree with that statement. My problem is that
> I see restriction on words as causing _greater_ harm than open discourse.
>
> To me, the greatest harm it is possible to cause is not to offend, but to
> silence. Whether that silence is affected through law, through convention,
> or through University policy is irrelevant. It still stiffles free speech
> and open dialog--and I honestly believe (with, I feel, a strong measure of
> evidence to back me) that it is only through such dialog that bigotry,
> racism, sexism, and homophobia will be eradicated.....
>
> Limit someone's ability to speak out and s/he will only develop
> greater hatred (with some justification). Permit the words, but refute
> them with more reasonable, more just, words and you not only reduce the
> effect of those words, but you may ultimately convert that enemy into a
> friend.
Rick, very nice said. In one of the scavenger hunt class project students
had to bring in items they found or created that symbolize the
significance of lists people, places and things in the American experience
discussed in several chapters of the textbook. One of the people was Walt
Whitman. On one occasion, a student, for her presentation, had drawn a
huge rainbow and talked of Whitman's homosexuality as a source of his
writings that made him one of America's greatest and most influential
literary figures. The students smiled, smirked, and laughed at the sight
of the rainbow and the talk of his homosexuality. Before we went on to
the next student's presentation, I asked why were there smirks, smiles,
and laughter. Did each of them realize how disrespectful they were being,
and maybe hurtful, to themsevles and their fellow students, some of whom
in the class may be of a different sexual persuasion. (They were as I had
learned by journal entries and conversations) "Didn't mean anything," was
the almost universal response. There were a few "it's ungodly." I then
asked one student how she would feel being call and thought of as a "dumb
blonde," another I asked how he would feel about being called and thought
of as a "dumb jock," a third about being labelled a "sorority whore," a
fourth about being tagged as a "bitch;" another as a "nigger," another as
a "fat slob," another as a nerd, and so on--even if the words themselves
were never said although the attitudes were acted on and acted out.
"That's different," someone said. "Is it...really? How?" I asked. We
had some discussion, not always agreeable or comfortable, but increasingly
open, honest, and meaningful. Changed the tenor of the class for the rest
of the semester. Didn't get to the project presentations for the remainer
of the class. That occurred this past semester.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of History http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698 /~\ /\ /\
912-333-5947 /^\ / \ / /~\ \ /~\__/\
/ \__/ \/ / /\ /~\/ \
/\/\-/ /^\_____\____________/__/_______/^\
-_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\
_ _ / don't practice on mole hills" - \____
