The New York Times reports on calls for the resignation of University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill (gift link):
Alumni, students and donors of the University of Pennsylvania called on Wednesday for Elizabeth Magill to resign as president of the school, a day after she testified at a contentious congressional hearing about campus antisemitism and evaded questions about whether students calling for the genocide of Jews violated Penn’s code of conduct.It was Elise Stefanik who asked Magill to answer yes or no: does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the university’s rules or code of conduct? Magill’s answer: “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.” She then allowed that calling for genocide “can be harassment.” Claudine Gay, Harvard’s president, drew the same distinction between speech and conduct, referring to speech that “crosses into conduct that violates our policies.”
It’s difficult to imagine a call for genocide against some other group eliciting such nuanced responses. But whatever: it’s specious to draw a line that divides speech from conduct. As speech-act theory reminds us, there are many contexts in which to speak is to act. (Think of a former president’s pre-January 6 tweets.) And conduct need not constitute harassment to be out of bounds on a college campus.
[I find Elise Stefanik’s politics abhorrent. But the answer to the question should be yes, no matter who’s asking.]
comments: 4
Conducting genocide could be called harassment?
And it’s against a code of conduct?
I wish this were a comedy routine, like Who’s on first?
But real life?
Heaven help us.
Calling for, not conducting!
I am guessing that the freedom of speech laws were modified after the war. My father served in a war that only happened because hate speech happened during the 30's so that folks were prepared to say that certain groups and nations were not equal.
So yes, a free society can have a legitimate interest in legally not allowing hate speech, because the consequences are so dire.
And contemporary Germany knows that well.
I know that Stefanik was stunting, but it shouldn’t have been difficult to give a clear answer: “Congresswoman, of course calling for genocide is against the standards of what’s acceptable on our campus. And if our code of conduct doesn’t take into account that kind of hateful speech, we will revise it immediately so that it does.”
Post a Comment