Month: August 2017

Tina Fey’s “Sheet Caking” Bit, and Why Discourse is Breaking

The debate surrounding Tina Fey’s “sheet caking” comedy bit demonstrates some problematic  directions that discourse may be trending.

The discussions we are having as we grapple with the proper response to increasingly visible white supremacy, which many believe is condoned by the President, are critically important.  As someone who writes and teaches First Amendment and free speech culture, I think our discourse on these topics is breaking down.  I am glad that cities and universities are removing statutes honoring Confederate soldiers.  Every one of those relics, which are rightly perceived by many as honoring slavery, should come down (although not by vandalism, but by local, democratic decision-making).  I am also glad to see citizens contending with our racist history and how that history has affected our current cultural, political, and socioeconomic climate.  However, the reaction to Tina Fey’s bit evinces the tactics of perverting our First Amendment paradigm and negating someone’s views based on her identity.  Both methods are bad for discourse.

Continue reading “Tina Fey’s “Sheet Caking” Bit, and Why Discourse is Breaking”

Free Speech After Charlottesville

The deadly events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist killed Heather Heyer and injured several others after a Unite the Right rally, have created a free speech reckoning for many, myself included.  After much thought, I have landed on the following ideas as ways forward.

Let’s not abandon viewpoint neutrality.  In an age where our President seeks to uncover the identifies of those who visit a website that coordinates protests against him, our First Amendment protections are more important than ever.  Indeed, in these dark times, our uniquely robust free speech protections are one of the few things that make me proud to be an American.

Unlike other countries, this country was built on the idea that the government – including public universities – cannot discriminate in the allocation of rights and benefits based on viewpoint.  Even “hate speech” is constitutionally protected in this country, and we should educate those misinforming people about their rights.  Universities cannot discriminate against student groups who wish to host speakers with offensive views, and cities and states cannot refuse to allow rallies based on the ideology of those seeking to march.

Let’s draw clear, principled lines between peaceful protest and violence and intimidation.  Of course, Charlottesville complicates these truths.  White supremacists holding torches, perhaps purposely emulating a lynch mob, create an atmosphere that doesn’t feel like a peaceful protest.  If protests are intended to create fear of violence, they can be restricted, although I do not think the Unite the Right rally met this high standard.  The Holocaust survivors in Skokie likely felt threatened as well by neo-Nazis bearing the swastika, the symbol of the death of their relatives.  The First Amendment requires an objective metric for when something is a threat – and an intent to intimidate.  That said, many of these protesters in Charlottesville came armed with guns or sticks.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful protest, but does not allow violent or destructive rallies.

Other public universities and cities are now cancelling rallies that appear similar to the one that occurred in Charlottesville.  These issues will likely end up in court.  My current view is that white supremacists, or White Lives Matter folks, or those opposed to increased diversity measures or immigration (I have trouble understanding the ethos of some of these rallies, which are a mélange of hard core and softer core white supremacists)  retain the right to peacefully protest.  They must demonstrate, however, that they encourage a peaceful protest.  Texas A & M has cancelled a rally because the organizers advertised the rally as “TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE TOMORROW TEXAS A&M.”  Given that billing, the decision to cancel the rally over safety concerns may be constitutional.  Incitement requires an intent and likelihood to provoke imminent violent action.  Calling for a repeat of a deadly rally may, indeed, meet this standard, although I am loathe to lower the high bar for incitement.

Let’s not simplify the narrative.  A major problem, from a First Amendment perspective, is that the Unite the Right rally did not happen in a vacuum.  Without drawing a false equivalence between Nazis and those opposed to Nazis, we should recognize that a counter-movement, which is explicitly violent in its ideology, has assaulted white supremacists when they attempt to peacefully protest.  The Anti-Fascist movement, which originated in Europe – where they do not possess our free speech traditions, has popularized the “Nazi punch” and derided the First Amendment rights guaranteed to all of us.  Anti-Fascists create violent, destructive riots that have shut down not just white supremacist rallies, but peaceful university speakers whose ideas or methods they find offensive.  Prior to Charlottesville, when universities and cities cancelled events due to fears of violence, it was often because the localities expected a much larger, more violent counter-protest movement than any disturbance the alt-right would bring.  Not surprisingly, the white supremacists now come armed to these protests (more so than previous protests), and clashes between white supremacists and anti-fascists are overwhelming the police’s ability to keep the peace.

Nazis and Anti-Fascists are not the same, for many reasons.  Indeed, it’s hard to compare any evil to Nazi-ism and white supremacy.   A white supremacist just killed an innocent woman.  But we should remember that any group espousing violence as a tactic for dealing with offensive ideas is a danger to our free speech protections and culture.  We should condemn anyone who wishes to engage in violent behavior in response to peaceful protest, or to shut down or assault speakers trying to communicate.  The ideology of the anti-fascists is hypocritical and unsustainable, and has perhaps added legitimacy to the white supremacists’ misguided feeling of victimization.  The Anti-Fascists represent “the heckler’s veto,” but a listener’s violent response to speech is not justification for silencing a speaker.

Engage with those with whom you disagree, and reconsider heavy handed tactics like firing and shaming for those who aren’t actual white supremacists.  There are many actions we can take in our daily lives to undermine the extreme polarization and violence plaguing our protest culture.  For one, we should condemn all extremist, violent ideologies.  Violence destroys pluralism, which allows for a variety of approaches to life so long as they do not case physical harm to others.  To the extent that white supremacy is an inherently violent ideology, it is the worst contributor to our country’s current climate and should be treated as such (not to mention that it is hateful, harmful, ignorant, shallow, simplistic, ahistorical, and, well, insane).

Aside from condemning the most extreme among us, we should avoid contributing to polarization.  When someone writes a memo, or expresses a view, stereotyping women, we should engage with that person instead of firing him.  We should not say that there is no room in a company for those who have different views about gender, so long as that person can treat individuals equally.  We should listen to those with views that are not totally hateful but are outside of the mainstream, instead of marginalizing them further.  Hate is taught, but it is taught in many different ways.

Think before blaming the ACLU.  The American Civil Liberties Union made the correct choice to demonstrate its commitment to nonpartisan civil liberties by representing the white supremacists who wished to march in Charlottesville.  The ACLU has been criticized for its choice.   Those claiming the ACLU has blood on its hands, or is now allied with white supremacists, have a myopic and dangerously perverse perception of what free speech requires.  However much people wish it were not so, the ACLU has always committed its resources to ensuring that the most odious members of society retain their constitutional rights.  If the ACLU became just another organization advancing a partisan agenda, it would lose its credibility, integrity, and power.  The exercise of civil liberties is supposed to be unpopular.  Civil liberties are necessary because the democracy, and the popular will, would prefer to erode them to improve social welfare.  Individual rights exist despite the common good – because certain fundamental rights cannot be taken away regardless of popular will.

To maintain our First Amendment protections, even as our county devolves into violence and hate, would be an important victory.  Free speech is not an easy right, and it is certainly not free, but it an essential component of liberty, and of the equality for which we should continue to strive.

Edit: The Vice documentary on the rally is worth watching. The video is extremely disturbing and sad, so be prepared. This is excellent journalism.

How Google (and Academia) Should Reconcile Inclusion Efforts with Viewpoint Diversity

A Google employee was fired on Monday for internally circulating a memo about how differences between men and women contribute to gender disparities at the tech company.  The ten-page memo contained fairly insulting gender stereotypes, such as women are less adept at handling stress, and men are more willing to dedicate long hours to their work in order to achieve higher status.  However, the memo was more measured than I expected from the reporting and outcry. Its author, James Damore, acknowledged the effects of sexism and the need for workplace diversity, but spoke out against the extent and unfairness of Google’s inclusion efforts and subconscious bias training.  He condemned “using stereotypes” (perhaps in individual application), but examined average traits distributed in the population.  The memo, although not convincing or well-executed, was, at the very least, correct about one thing:  A culture of shaming certain views, even moderate views, does exist in many important institutions.  Google’s dramatic step of firing Damore went beyond that shaming.

Google’s heavy-handed punishment, in the name of inclusion, actually undermines a critical purpose of gender and racial inclusion efforts.  One of the benefits of diversity — a benefit I have seen first-hand in the classroom — is that diversity exposes others to different viewpoints, backgrounds, and perspectives.  Google has instead impressed upon its employees that everyone must have, or must appear to have, hegemonic views about nature versus nurture in the gender debate and must advance the same explanation for gender imbalances in a tech company.  There are better ways to reconcile inclusion efforts with true viewpoint diversity; the two concepts needn’t be at odds.  Below, I will detail some possible approaches.

Continue reading “How Google (and Academia) Should Reconcile Inclusion Efforts with Viewpoint Diversity”