Seems to me that the problem is, basic human rights (shelter, health care, food, clothes) and employment our coupled. If you have two options, one that involves the risk of poverty and the other that involves giving up your right to free speech, you have no free speech at all. That’s the problem with living in a 100% capitalist system.

So, you have two options for an open society: regulate industry to the extent you regulate government (make it illegal to dismiss someone except under very specific circumstances) or decouple employment and basic human rights (ie; everyone, regardless of employment status, gets ~$14/hr, health care, etc.)

Obviously, both are extremely expensive and would really suck. Hard problem to solve.

Interesting.. One of the first case discussions we had at Wharton was in a diversity workshop. the case was about an email sent to the entire Wharton student body a few years ago promoting a “pimp & whore” party that was written in almost the exact same words as the one cited in the MIT incident. The case discussion obviously involved issues around exercising judgement before sending mass emails, what’s acceptable/unacceptable on the “Wharton Plantation.” Yet it’s interesting to see how the same actions could almost be judged differently under different enviornments. In the more traditional and homogenous business school, it’s easier to understand why sending controversial emails like these would represent poor taste. On the other hand, i would almost side with free speech if such email was sent in a collegiate environment simply because undergraduate education is about ideas, expression, creativity, experimentation, etc, where censorship would be a bad thing. Let’s leave the conformity and unoriginality to the real world (and professional degrees).

Political correctness and speech codes do exist at universities, and I am as disturbed by them as Philip seems to be. But there is a world of difference between parody and threatening physical violence. The latter – threatening violence – is NEVER a part of free speech; it is, in fact, illegal. Hasn’t anyone learned anything from what happened at Columbine? It doesn’t matter whether actual violence did or didn’t occur at the party. The invitation explicitly encouraged making threats of physical violence and sexual harrassment (slapping of asses). These kinds of threats should never be tolerated, especially in a public setting such as a dorm. (A dorm is shared space, not a private residence.)

Philip. Implicit in your posting is the premise that speech and behavior are distinct. All speech is a form of behavior. Speech can be used to express an idea, but it can also be used to intimidate, to conspire, to threaten, to degrade, and to humiliate. Not all form of speech is protected, either legally or normatively.

Neither you or I know the facts of this case. But you blithely assume, without any knowledge of the circumstances, that this was all innocent (”a parody”). How do you know that? (I am not saying that knowing where to draw the line is easy. From that it doesn’t follow that there is no line.)

Philip, I don’t doubt that there is anti-semitism at MIT just as there is racism, sexism, and just vile behavior. No one should have to put with it. That’s precisely the point. But it’s also the case that if you are trying to express an idea, no matter how controversial, you should be allowed to do so at a University. “Speech codes” do exist at Universities. And that’s wrong. I have seen examples of that and am revolted by it.

So what’s the bottom line? If your point is that there are speech codes at Universities, I agree with you. I just think your example sucks because we don’t what the facts are in this case.

Uh, Al, I didn’t attend the party in question but I don’t believe that there was any physical violence involved nor any seriously suggested. The students appear to have attempted something that outside the university is known as “parody”. I assume that the party itself was the usual dismal MIT affair.

And I wasn’t attacking Chuck Vest or the rest of the MIT administrators. It might be good for young people to learn to keep their mouths mostly shut because that’s probably what they’ll need to do to hold onto their jobs.

I don’t think the example of vocal Jew-haters in the classroom is comparable to this email invitation that various people didn’t think was funny. An email message can be deleted and an evening can be spent doing something other than attending the party in question. A class, however, only meets for X minutes and therefore anything that is off-topic is unwelcome.

Unfettered Freedom is Anarchy. Read about the French Revolution.

I respect Philip but this is a bogus posting and a red herring. No one at MIT objects to students holding a ghetto/rap-themed party in their dorm. What people object to, and rightfully so, are a group of students acting like thugs, explicitly encouraging physical violence and sexual assault.

It’s quite glib to proclaim oneself on the side of “freedom”. It’s not as easy to determine where to draw the boundaries. If people think that this type of *behavior* is permissible, then I challenge them to present criteria and principled ways in which they will exclude other behavior which we would clearly recognize as impermissible. That was the point of my examples and challenge to Philip.

It is depressing to see people comparing Freedom with Anarchy and Stupidity here at philip’s blogland.

In case you missed the “manifesto. Here are some excerpts from the kids that you want to “prepare for the real world”:

–Loud music is key. Rap will be played at an acceptable (read, reallyfucking loud) volume. If your neighbors ask you to turn it down, threaten them with physical violence.

–Do not take ass slapping as a sign of sexual harassment or hazing — it is important to your well being on walcott.

–If you steal something from somebody and they accuse you of doing so, threaten them with physical violence. Actually, just threaten everyone with physical violence.

This case is not about free speech or diversity. It’s about mis-conduct, lack of respect and intimidation displayed by hooligans and thugs.

BTW. Comparing President Chuck Vest to a plantation owner is inane. Vest is one of the finest University Presidents around and most MIT alumni recognize that.

Philip, Since you are so much brighter and with it than the hapless university “functionaries”, please explain to me how you would handle the following cases:

a) Students in your class begin to address you as “Hey Fuck face Professor” whenever they ask you a question in class. Or, suppose some students address others students disrespectfully in class. Perhaps some students begin to address women students in the class by preceding their name also with “Bitch” and “Slut”. What would you do? Would you ask them to refrain. What if they claim that they are exercising their “free speech”.

b) Some students in residence hall give a party with the theme “Let’s Kill All the Jews”. They start passing out invitations with swastikas and have “humorous” pictures of people being gassed and then cremated. And suppose I am a Jew who happens to live in that residence hall next to the morons. What are you going to tell me? What if they start having a party next to my room dancing and drinking with Hitler and Goebbels speeches as background. Is that free speech also?

Help me out here. I want to understand your position. While you are at it you might want to read the students manifesto clearly, especially the sections about physical violence.

The big difference between a university and a corporation is, the students are the ones paying, either directly or as alumni contributors, and ultimately they have the power. Just look at the phenomenon of grade inflation at places like Harvard. State schools get funding from the government, and are subject to te Bill of Rights.