Another University Freedom of Speech Issue

Interesting situation has arisen at U-Mass.  What should be done in regard to a poster in a residence hall window that contains an obscenity and castigates Nazis? Is it offensive, does it violate some sort of threat standard, and does it violate the university's inclusiveness policy ?  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/02/umass-amherst-student-asked-remove-anti-nazi-poster-not-being-inclusive?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=b1f5bdde86-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-b1f5bdde86-197670105&mc_cid=b1f5bdde86&mc_eid=1afdbb538c

Emotional vs legal considerations?


I wonder why the article was written, since the University did clarify.

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: A student placed a sign in their window that said, "F--- Nazis."

A poorly worded email from Residence Life staff asking students to take down the sign does not reflect the values of the campus, and it should not have been sent.

UMass Amherst emphatically rejects Nazis, and any other hate group, a view expressed in the students’ sign. However, we are sensitive to the use of profanity, which some could find inappropriate. The university respects the students’ right to display the sign and it may remain up.

https://www.facebook.com/UMassAmherst/posts/10155938943403671?__tn__=-R


I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.


nohero said:
I wonder why the article was written

To provide more "evidence" of the non-existent campus "free speech crisis."


tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.

 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.


ridski said:


tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.

I've reported you to the moderators.


tjohn said:


ridski said:

tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.
I've reported you to the moderators.

  question 


nohero said:
I wonder why the article was written, since the University did clarify

 I suppose it’s newsworthy because many university administrators are feeling challenged. They have their own values with respect to inclusiveness,  have to contend with lawsuits filed by students from all sides on constitutional grounds, and are being scrutinized by the media for  

 any decisions they make. 


Norman_Bates said:


nohero said:
I wonder why the article was written, since the University did clarify
 I suppose it’s newsworthy because many university administrators are feeling challenged. They have their own values with respect to inclusiveness,  have to contend with lawsuits filed by students from all sides on constitutional grounds, and are being scrutinized by the media for  
 any decisions they make. 

 According to the story you posted, the original email was sent by one Eddie Papazoni, a "Residence Director" at a first-year dorm.

He doesn't seem to be an administrator.  The real administrators had to deal with the wording of his email, and dealt with it before the news hit the NY Post or other fine media outlets.

If it was "newsworthy" for the reason you mentioned, the lede would have been different, I think.


tjohn said:


ridski said:

tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.
I've reported you to the moderators.

 What about **** do you think is inappropriate?


Formerlyjerseyjack said:


tjohn said:

ridski said:

tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.
I've reported you to the moderators.
 What about **** do you think is inappropriate?

I have this funny notion that college students should be able to communicate effectively.  For example, they should be able to write, say, a five page essay explaining why tolerance and inclusiveness and democracy is better that Nazism.  I don't have a problem with the sentiment expressed in saying "**** Nazis", but I am tired of our national political discourse which, as of late, seems to be reduced to 

1st debater:   **** you man

2nd debater:   no, **** you.  

1st debater:   You're an *******

2nd debater:   no, you're an *******" 

ad nauseam.


tjohn said:


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

tjohn said:

ridski said:

tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.
I've reported you to the moderators.
 What about **** do you think is inappropriate?
I have this funny notion that college students should be able to communicate effectively.  For example, they should be able to write, say, a five page essay explaining why tolerance and inclusiveness and democracy is better that Nazism.  I don't have a problem with the sentiment expressed in saying "**** Nazis", but I am tired of our national political discourse which, as of late, seems to be reduced to 
1st debater:   **** you man
2nd debater:   no, **** you.  
1st debater:   You're an *******
2nd debater:   no, you're an *******" 
ad nauseam.

I'll bet they won't get off your lawn either.


nohero said:



Norman_Bates said:

nohero said:
I wonder why the article was written, since the University did clarify
 I suppose it’s newsworthy because many university administrators are feeling challenged. They have their own values with respect to inclusiveness,  have to contend with lawsuits filed by students from all sides on constitutional grounds, and are being scrutinized by the media for  
 any decisions they make. 
 According to the story you posted, the original email was sent by one Eddie Papazoni, a "Residence Director" at a first-year dorm.

He doesn't seem to be an administrator.  The real administrators had to deal with the wording of his email, and dealt with it before the news hit the NY Post or other fine media outlets.
If it was "newsworthy" for the reason you mentioned, the lede would have been different, I think.

      I checked the U-Mass website where Eddie Papazoni is listed as being in a Masters degree level administrative position in the Residence Life program at U-Mass...he is not in a student position.   Frankly, given the public relations implications, unless he is a fool or ignored protocol, he would have consulted someone in a more senior position before sending that email.  Naturally, under respondeat superior, his supervisors are responsible for his actions.  Of course, I have no idea whether he did.

     However, whatever his position level, that is not at all my point.  Perhaps you have experience as a university administrator?  If so, you would undoubtedly recognize the challenges of being caught in the vortex of four forces in such matters:  (1) students (and their parents), alums, faculty, donors, and other institutional stakeholders; (2) external sources such as the media and the general public; (3) university policies...often written well before such issues arose; and (4) the evolving body of law that can be internally conflicting (i.e. DOE policies sometimes don't match court precedents).  There are many on college campuses who contend that there is some stifling of speech and just as many - perhaps even more - who argue that isn't the case.   If you are familiar with the public vs. private factor, you will know that it primarily is the public sector which, as state actors, are subject to these forces more than private institutions.

     Certainly, some MOL posters have reached their respective positions...some appear to be more informed and some less informed by direct experience and/or knowledge of the related body of law.  I have lived and seen both sides of the issue and I see this situation as illustrative of the complexity of the matter.  It certainly would seem that saying "F-You to" Nazis would be a no-brainer...after all, who could possibly object?  I once went to observe a neo-Nazi rally in Cleveland and was among the hundreds in the crowd chanting that very thing at the 5-6 self-proclaimed "nazis" who showed up in their dress brown-shirts...actually, that was a rather pathetic rally.   Ah, but it isn't quite that simple on a college campus as this matter suggests. Just as you have to let the Nazis march in Skokie, it seems you cannot object to their presence on campus.

   




tjohn said:


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

tjohn said:

ridski said:

tjohn said:
I remember when I thought it was clever to use profanity as punctuation, verbs, adjectives, etc.  Then I learned how to communicate without profanity.  I prefer the latter.
 **** that, I'll use all the words I shitting well like.
I've reported you to the moderators.
 What about **** do you think is inappropriate?
I have this funny notion that college students should be able to communicate effectively.  For example, they should be able to write, say, a five page essay explaining why tolerance and inclusiveness and democracy is better that Nazism.  I don't have a problem with the sentiment expressed in saying "**** Nazis", but I am tired of our national political discourse which, as of late, seems to be reduced to 
1st debater:   **** you man
2nd debater:   no, **** you.  
1st debater:   You're an *******
2nd debater:   no, you're an *******" 
ad nauseam.

 I believe I've made it perfectly clear over my years here that I'm fully able to debate and conduct myself in other situations with the correct decorum based on my own judgment. Until, that is, someone tells me that it's somehow less civilized to slip into profanity, at which point I'm more than happy to throw out enough F-bombs to level Dresden.


profanity is like mustard.  Only an idiot would put it on everything.  But every once in a while, you need to add a little mustard to a give your dish a little kick.


The F bomb today has about as much punch as a "darn" bomb of yore.


Norman_Bates said:


nohero said:




Norman_Bates said:

nohero said:
I wonder why the article was written, since the University did clarify
 I suppose it’s newsworthy because many university administrators are feeling challenged. They have their own values with respect to inclusiveness,  have to contend with lawsuits filed by students from all sides on constitutional grounds, and are being scrutinized by the media for  
 any decisions they make. 
 According to the story you posted, the original email was sent by one Eddie Papazoni, a "Residence Director" at a first-year dorm.

He doesn't seem to be an administrator.  The real administrators had to deal with the wording of his email, and dealt with it before the news hit the NY Post or other fine media outlets.
If it was "newsworthy" for the reason you mentioned, the lede would have been different, I think.
      I checked the U-Mass website where Eddie Papazoni is listed as being in a Masters degree level administrative position in the Residence Life program at U-Mass...he is not in a student position.   Frankly, given the public relations implications, unless he is a fool or ignored protocol, he would have consulted someone in a more senior position before sending that email.  Naturally, under respondeat superior, his supervisors are responsible for his actions.  Of course, I have no idea whether he did.
     However, whatever his position level, that is not at all my point.  Perhaps you have experience as a university administrator?  If so, you would undoubtedly recognize the challenges of being caught in the vortex of four forces in such matters:  (1) students (and their parents), alums, faculty, donors, and other institutional stakeholders; (2) external sources such as the media and the general public; (3) university policies...often written well before such issues arose; and (4) the evolving body of law that can be internally conflicting (i.e. DOE policies sometimes don't match court precedents).  There are many on college campuses who contend that there is some stifling of speech and just as many - perhaps even more - who argue that isn't the case.   If you are familiar with the public vs. private factor, you will know that it primarily is the public sector which, as state actors, are subject to these forces more than private institutions.
     Certainly, some MOL posters have reached their respective positions...some appear to be more informed and some less informed by direct experience and/or knowledge of the related body of law.  I have lived and seen both sides of the issue and I see this situation as illustrative of the complexity of the matter.  It certainly would seem that saying "F-You to" Nazis would be a no-brainer...after all, who could possibly object?  I once went to observe a neo-Nazi rally in Cleveland and was among the hundreds in the crowd chanting that very thing at the 5-6 self-proclaimed "nazis" who showed up in their dress brown-shirts...actually, that was a rather pathetic rally.   Ah, but it isn't quite that simple on a college campus as this matter suggests. Just as you have to let the Nazis march in Skokie, it seems you cannot object to their presence on campus.
   




 This position is given to grad students (in this case, Mr P is pursuing an MA so is in fact a student) and is typically paid in free housing.   It is nowhere near a real admin position.


Norman_Bates said:

I have lived and seen both sides of the issue and I see this situation as illustrative of the complexity of the matter.  It certainly would seem that saying "F-You to" Nazis would be a no-brainer...after all, who could possibly object?  I once went to observe a neo-Nazi rally in Cleveland and was among the hundreds in the crowd chanting that very thing at the 5-6 self-proclaimed "nazis" who showed up in their dress brown-shirts...actually, that was a rather pathetic rally.   Ah, but it isn't quite that simple on a college campus as this matter suggests. Just as you have to let the Nazis march in Skokie, it seems you cannot object to their presence on campus.

I’m not following your last sentence: Letting Nazis march promotes free speech; it seems to me you can object to their presence at UMass, for the same reason.

But I agree it’s a complex issue. For instance, UMass says that it, too, “emphatically rejects” Parsons’s target. What if another student, though, copied her poster for his own window, only Mad-Libbing some other plural noun after the expletive? A group that UMass doesn’t reject emphatically?

The Sarah Lawrence professor makes it sound so clear-cut: Toughen up! Hash it out! Don’t let in-your-face hatred get you down! Even if I had skin that thick, I think I’d get tired of the battles pretty fast.

Lastly, if Parsons is glad to be moving off campus, she may be in for a surprise when she tries to display a message through her next window.


F*ck is the greatest word in the English language.


yahooyahoo said:
F*ck is the greatest word in the English language.

 It's certainly the most versatile.


ml1 said:
profanity is like mustard.  Only an idiot would put it on everything.  But every once in a while, you need to add a little mustard to a give your dish a little kick.

Thank you for succinctly stating what I was trying to say.  So, an example of using profanity effectively - even though it was a lesser profanity - was Michelle Obama saying of Sheryl Sandberg's lean-in approach:  "Sometimes that **** don't work."


dave said


 This position is given to grad students (in this case, Mr P is pursuing an MA so is in fact a student) and is typically paid in free housing.   It is nowhere near a real admin position.

What you have written is incorrect.  This is a full-time administrative position at U-Mass, not a graduate assistant position.  Here is the actual position description on the HR site where it is classified as a "Professional Staff Salary Administration Program Position Level 26"

http://careers.umass.edu/amherst/en-us/job/495122/residence-director  

Should you go on to contend this is a low-level position, you would be accurate. However, it is a professional administrative position which was the crux of what I wrote.   


I'm going to just say that this "issue" is incredibly trivial.  One sign in one dorm in one school.  That was taken down briefly and then reinstated.  The fact that free speech often involves some measure of give and take isn't the slightest bit newsworthy.  Unless one is an ideologue hell-bent on promoting the greatly, greatly exaggerated idea that colleges are suppressing speech, that is.


DaveSchmidt said:


Norman_Bates said:

I have lived and seen both sides of the issue and I see this situation as illustrative of the complexity of the matter.  It certainly would seem that saying "F-You to" Nazis would be a no-brainer...after all, who could possibly object?  I once went to observe a neo-Nazi rally in Cleveland and was among the hundreds in the crowd chanting that very thing at the 5-6 self-proclaimed "nazis" who showed up in their dress brown-shirts...actually, that was a rather pathetic rally.   Ah, but it isn't quite that simple on a college campus as this matter suggests. Just as you have to let the Nazis march in Skokie, it seems you cannot object to their presence on campus.
I’m not following your last sentence: Letting Nazis march promotes free speech; it seems to me you can object to their presence at UMass, for the same reason.
But I agree it’s a complex issue. For instance, UMass says that it, too, “emphatically rejects” Parsons’s target. What if another student, though, copied her poster for his own window, only Mad-Libbing some other plural noun after the expletive? A group that UMass doesn’t reject emphatically?
The Sarah Lawrence professor makes it sound so clear-cut: Toughen up! Hash it out! Don’t let in-your-face hatred get you down! Even if I had skin that thick, I think I’d get tired of the battles pretty fast.
Lastly, if Parsons is glad to be moving off campus, she may be in for a surprise when she tries to display a message through her next window.

 I meant only that freedom of speech requires even offensive view/actions  (e.g. the famous Supreme Court Decision regarding Skokie illinois) to be allowed expression. So, not only does the court require that Nazis be allowed to march in the street but the U-Mass policy on inclusion apparently also protects them from being excluded on campus.  But, I could be incorrect about that.  More my opinion than anything else. Apologies for not making that clear.


ml1 said:
I'm going to just say that this "issue" is incredibly trivial.  One sign in one dorm in one school.  That was taken down briefly and then reinstated.  The fact that free speech often involves some measure of give and take isn't the slightest bit newsworthy.  Unless one is an ideologue hell-bent on promoting the greatly, greatly exaggerated idea that colleges are suppressing speech, that is.

 Don't disagree....unless you are in the profession of higher education, as I am.  I found it interesting because it illustrates the on-going complexity of these matters. Personally, I don't necessarily think speech is being suppressed on college campuses


Edited to add:   And, certainly a number of newspapers and other media have picked up on the story. Does that make it "news"?   Given the drivel that passes for "news" today (inane panel chit chat and opinion pieces) I suppose it may.


Norman_Bates said:


ml1 said:
I'm going to just say that this "issue" is incredibly trivial.  One sign in one dorm in one school.  That was taken down briefly and then reinstated.  The fact that free speech often involves some measure of give and take isn't the slightest bit newsworthy.  Unless one is an ideologue hell-bent on promoting the greatly, greatly exaggerated idea that colleges are suppressing speech, that is.
 Don't disagree....unless you are in the profession of higher education, as I am.  I found it interesting because it illustrates the on-going complexity of these matters. Personally, I don't necessarily think speech is being suppressed on college campuses

It is not uncommon, however, for speakers espousing unpopular points of view to be shouted down and this has been going on forever.  In 1975, Cornell Univ. invited Nguyễn Cao Kỳ to speak and he was booed off of the stage.


Norman_Bates said:

Edited to add:   And, certainly a number of newspapers and other media have picked up on the story. Does that make it "news"?   Given the drivel that passes for "news" today (inane panel chit chat and opinion pieces) I suppose it may.

 generally these stories are picked up by conservative outlets with an ax to grind.  Namely, that academics are a bunch of authoritarian leftists purging their institutions of any speech they don't like.


ml1 said:
I'm going to just say that this "issue" is incredibly trivial.  One sign in one dorm in one school.  That was taken down briefly and then reinstated.  The fact that free speech often involves some measure of give and take isn't the slightest bit newsworthy.  Unless one is an ideologue hell-bent on promoting the greatly, greatly exaggerated idea that colleges are suppressing speech, that is.

It wasn’t taken down even briefly, from what I’ve read. The email from the residence director was a request, not a command.

ETA: The Boston Globe article says Parsons took it down later because her roommate was tired of the attention.

generally these stories are picked up by conservative outlets with an ax to grind.  Namely, that academics are a bunch of authoritarian leftists purging their institutions of any speech they don't like.

Inside Higher Ed is not one of those outlets. Norman_Bates, who gave this thread an anodyne title and hasn’t claimed a crisis, says it’s newsworthy “because many university administrators are feeling challenged.” I find it newsworthy because the give-and-take is usually interesting on its face. Sure, it can be exploited, which deserves pushback. But dismiss the topic outright? Personally, I’m glad NB brought this story to my attention. 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.