Table of Contents
On Marquette Classroom Controversy, Rebuttal Ignores Facts
On his philosophy news site Daily Nous, University of South Carolina associate professor today to a blog post I wrote about hostility towards certain viewpoints at Marquette University. In his post, Weinberg argued that graduate student Cheryl Abbate was the 鈥渢arget of a political attack鈥 by one of her students and that she was simply abiding by Marquette鈥檚 harassment policy, not censoring student speech, when she told him certain viewpoints weren鈥檛 welcome. Weinberg鈥檚 reasoning is flawed on several levels.
To review: A student in Abbate鈥檚 ethics class objected to her allegedly stating that 鈥渆verybody agrees鈥 on the issue of gay rights, so 鈥渢here is no need to discuss it.鈥 After class, he approached her and recorded a conversation with her in which she defended the exclusion of particular viewpoints from the classroom because they might 鈥渙ffend鈥 students.
Weinberg argues that Abbate was simply controlling the scope of the classroom discussion, as all instructors must do. He writes that during the next class after the recorded incident, Abbate 鈥渘oted that class time is limited.鈥 Yet, in the recorded conversation, Abbate repeatedly cites the offensiveness of certain types of statements in declaring them 鈥渘ot appropriate鈥 for the classroom. Here is a partial transcript of the student鈥檚 recording:
Student: Regardless of why I鈥檓 against gay marriage, it鈥檚 still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person鈥檚 opinion when they may have different opinions.
Abbate: Okay, there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions. And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in your class, in your class is homosexual? And do you not think that it would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?
Student: If I choose to challenge that, that鈥檚 my right as an American citizen.
Abbate: Well, actually, you don鈥檛 have a right in this class, as the, especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, or racist comments, sexist...
(At this point, the student interrupted Abbate and the conversation shifted direction.)
The fact that Abbate cited limited time as her reason for shutting the discussion down on the second day does not negate her plainly communicated intention to keep certain opinions out of the classroom.
Weinberg next asserts that Abbate was right in being concerned about students taking offense to a student voicing his or her opposition to gay rights, because as an instructor, Abbate is 鈥渞equired to be in compliance with the university鈥檚 .鈥
But no harassment policy should be so broad as to render speech causing mere offense punishable. The Department of Education鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights, the federal agency that enforces the anti-discrimination laws with which Marquette must comply as a condition of accepting federal funds, has that 鈥渢he offensiveness of a particular expression, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis鈥 to render it punishable under the law. Instead, 鈥渉arassment must be sufficiently serious (i.e., severe, persistent or pervasive) as to limit or deny a student鈥檚 ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program.鈥 In other words, 鈥渢o be prohibited by the statutes within OCR鈥檚 jurisdiction, [harassment] must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.鈥 So Weinberg鈥檚 contention鈥攖hat by shutting down certain viewpoints to preemptively prevent a student being offended, Abbate was only doing her job鈥攔elies on a depressingly broad but tragically common misreading of what is and isn鈥檛 harassment in the educational context.
What鈥檚 more, Marquette鈥檚 harassment policy is inconsistent with Marquette鈥檚 stated commitment to free inquiry (which I cited in my previous post) and with common sense. The alarmingly broad policy prohibits, among other things, 鈥渧erbal 鈥 conduct鈥 (i.e., speech) including 鈥渁 single incident鈥 when it is 鈥渋ntimidating, hostile or demeaning or could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm.鈥
Under this policy, if one simply says something to another student that could result in emotional discomfort or embarrassment (regardless of whether it in fact does), then one is guilty of harassment. This could easily include a statement from a professor to a student that the student鈥檚 sincerely held beliefs are 鈥渋nappropriate,鈥 鈥渉armful,鈥 鈥渞acist,鈥 or 鈥渟exist.鈥 To be clear: By this definition, Abbate has already harassed the complaining student. And the policy certainly covers innumerable instances in which students or professors challenge each others鈥 beliefs鈥攊nteraction that is at the heart of a meaningful college education.
Despite claims to the contrary, Abbate advocated for the exclusion from the classroom of viewpoints she finds 鈥渙ffensive.鈥 To defend this goal by citing a policy so broad it could be used to shut down nearly any discussion of any importance is to provide no defense at all.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.