This week I decided to read the article by Vats & Dutta which regards freedom of speech in an era of global white nationalism. Their argument is that nothing has actually changed and people can still get away with outlandish comments. For example, two Stanford students were caught terrorizing people by defacing two posters one of Beethoven and also one of a black fraternity dance. Unfortunately, Stanford said it was an "unfortunate boyish prank" instead of considering it a hate crime even though the N word was repeatedly put all over these posters.
Not only do the authors of this article argue about history repeating itself, they argue that it never actually really had broken itself in the first place. It isn't just against the black population either, we're talking Asian, Indigenous, Muslim, Jewish, etc. These groups have been getting discriminated for years and when some people consider these jokes "harmless" it's actually quite scary for these other groups as they don't know if people are being serious or not. Being a Jewish student on campus, sometimes when I hear those jokes I go into fight or flight mode because to me it's a serious matter and I don't think certain people who are not part of these ethnic groups understand the damage they're actually doing. This type of stuff makes people who are the targets of these attacks feel threatened even at the school where they're just trying to get an education.
Anjali Vats & Mohan J. Dutta (2020) Locating freedom of speech
in an era of global white nationalism, First Amendment Studies, 54:2, 156-180, DOI:Anjali Vats & Mohan J. Dutta (2020) Locating freedom of speech
in an era of global white nationalism, First Amendment Studies, 54:2, 156-180, DOI:Anjali Vats & Mohan J. Dutta (2020) Locating freedom of speech in an era of global white nationalism, First Amendment Studies, 54:2, 156-180, DOI: 10.1080/21689725.1838843
10.1080/21689725.2020.183884310.1080/21689725.2020.1838843
David, your reflection of the Vats & Dutta article reminds me of the many times satire has been weaponized against minorities in my academic experience. I remember one particular instance in high school when I was walking down the halls and I overheard a group of guys talking very explicitly about vulgar sexual harassment and other such topics. In private, I confronted one of the guys as they were my "friend" and was met with satirical excuses and "learn to take a joke" type comments. Shortly after this interaction, I did not feel safe interacting with this individual nor did I trust what them and their friend group was capable of. Regardless of how serious those boys were or not, the simple fact that they felt comfortable enough to share such horrific ideas in a satirical manner resulted in the end of the relationship. To your point, intention isn't always the main cause for discomfort and safety concerns. If someone is taking advantage of free speech as a means to terrorize and threaten marginalized groups, it quickly turns into an argument of ethical communication.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and reflection, David! I agree that these acts of hate are often overlooked or are not punished to the extent they should be. Labelling these acts correctly is important because it allows for us to highlight the real issue, racism, bias, etc. When we do not label these incidents correctly, there is room for misleading comments such as calling the incident you mentioned an "unfortunate boyish prank".
ReplyDeleteThis also reminded me of an incident in which I was on a baseball team as a kid in Little League. We were beating the team 11-0 in the first inning and a bunch of the boys were saying "we're raping this team". I didn't know what this meant at the time, but it was easily brushed over by the coaches as "boys being boys". While this incident I'm describing is not about race, it reminds me of the example you pointed out because of the way in which the coaches (who are supposed to direct us) reacted.