Hi Folks,
I not going to respond to every one of Rick's statements point by point. Rather, I
am just going to summarize a few thoughts and be done with it. Clearly, Rick and I
have some underlying value differences. We will by necessity need to simply
disagree regarding these. It is my hope that this discussion will end shortly.
What is sad is that the end result of this discussion will most likely be my leaving
the list. The acceptance of prejudice or the fact that it isn't even perceived by
many on this list has left a bad taste in my mouth and the initial small hurt that I
felt has grown. Obviously, the creation of an environment that is hostile to people
who are "different" has received much discussion both within social psychology as
well as the legal profession. It is problematic when it closes doors to resources
whether an education or access to professional information.
1. I place human rights ahead of civil liberties. We could engage in a lengthy
debate on this topic but clearly it is not one with a resolution. I will not for
example, allow a student in class to call an African-American student a "ni--er".
We can discuss the appropriateness with the first use, perhaps even the second, but
beyond that the environment has become unsafe for others in the class. So yes, I
will limit that students free speech.
2. There are situations where it is appropriate to limit free speech. In the above
example, I understand that others believe that if I say that the student can not
longer use those words in class that this will drive the hatred further underground
where it may become more destructive. However, in a classroom, my goal is to teach
whatever is the topic (with some broad discretion). It is not a sensitivity
session, group therapy, or diversity training. Not to say that some of that can not
go on but it should not consume the class and it is not what the students have
registered for. The students have a right to a safe environment in which to learn
statistics or whatever else I may be teaching. I think individuals have a right to
that on this list as well whether they be Iraqi, on AFDC, or a fundamentalist
Christian. I believe I have spoken out when stereotypes have been raised that are
harmful regardless of whether I am a member of the target group or not. What is
different in this case is that we see a consistent pattern of negativity and
offensiveness by one individual towards one group of people. At some point it
becomes destructive to not step up to the plate and say "These comments are
offensive". Perhaps, the question also becomes what is the purpose of this list? I
thought it was to discuss the teaching of psychology and not a regular "open mike"
for offensiveness.
3. I find it interesting that those most vocal about free speech and censorship are
the very folks objecting to my statements that Michael's post have been offensive
whether it is a discussion of "Baywatch Babes", questioning the ability of gay
researchers to be objective, or his regular anti-Semitic comments. Interesting that
the free speech seems to only be encouraged in one direction. Clearly, the only way
I have of censoring Michael Sylvester is if I went down to Florida and hit him
upside the head with a two-by-four. However, this would violate my religious and
ethical principles. Now, Frostburg State University does have the power to censor
him. My guess is except for Bill, TPTB have no clue this discussion is occurring.
4. Free speech does not mean that I must be tolerant, appreciative, encouraging,
open, receptive to overt offensiveness.
5. There is a difference between a classroom and a professional list. I understand
all of the wonderful examples concerning students. Students often speak
unwittingly. We are not discussing a student but a professionally trained social
psychologist who teaches courses related to the topic under discussion. It is
unlikely that the person in question is simply operating out of ignorance.
6. There are a difference between expressing ideas and just making statements to
offend. Michael has a track record on the latter.
7. Again in relation to free speech, do Klansman or Nazi's have a right to spew
hate?. You bet. But not in my classroom and I would hope not at an APA or APS
convention. As this is also a professional organization of sorts, I would say that
it does not have a place on this list.
8. Arrested for social activism? Yes, perhaps, we can swap tales. Tear gassed?
Isn't that a given? Both of our personal experiences can support our respective
positions. I don't think it necessarily lends weight to the specific discussion of
Michael's continuous posts that negatively stereotype Jews.
9. Your focus (beyond psych/soc.) is political science. My focus is grounded in the
psychosocial mechanisms underlying the perpetration of the Holocaust, genocide, and
human rights violations. We can both use that information to support our
positions. For example, Valerie Bemeriki was arrested this past week for her role
during the Rwandan genocide as a function of her radio broadcasts. Her broadcasts
- - her words such as calling Tutsis inyenzi (cockroaches) helped fuel the
genocide. We can both draw on history. I'm not sure how useful it is in a
discussion of Michael's offensive posting behavior.
10. Should I apologize to Michael? He makes anti-Semitic comments (some of which
have been repeated throughout the centuries - not even subtle) but you argue that he
has no reason to apologize. After all, he may have not intended to offend. I say
that I find his comments offensive and I should apologize because I may have hurt
Michael??????
11. In some ways, I feel my sentiments have been discounted as they are from a
"victim perspective". Personally, I believe we are all diminished when someone
behaves as a racist, sexist, etc. manner. We only remain victims if we keep quiet
and just take it.
12. You argue that offensive statement simply call for a response to correct
misinformation, etc. I believe I have demonstrated a pattern of this behavior. But
how much time do I waste with these endeavors when it is clear that the questions
are not based in misinformation. Perhaps, I am giving Michael more credit than he
is due. I do not believe his is ignorant or stupid. I think he is probably a very
bright man. But I also think that his statements give the appearance of an
underlying prejudice which has not appeared to dissipate over the past several
years.
13. I am on this list to discuss areas relevant to the teaching of psychology
(broadly defined). I am not on this list to consistently have to fend off
"provocative" statements grounded in prejudice or a desire for attention. If this
was what I wanted I would join the White Aryan Nation's discussion list or I would
join some sort of "self-help" list. If the members of this list decide that
anti-Semitic statements, racist statements, sexist statements, etc. are acceptable
and regularly welcome on this list as a demonstration of free speech, then this is
no longer the list to which I thought I subscribed nor a professional list (IMO).
Sadly, seriously considering unsubscribing.
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]
