Freedom of expression is essential to a productive and creative learning environment. This means students must be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from their own. Speech that challenges commonly held assumptions can be beneficial. Hate speech benefits no one because it seeks only to tear down, not to build up. The University needs to directly address hate speech for the good of productive discourse.
Bold words from the University of Chicago's student newspaper editorial board. And by "bold" we mean "retarded."
Of course, The Chicago Maroon editors would probably classify that last sentence as hate speech, because it seeks only to tear down, not to build up. But this is a core flaw in the anti-hate speech movement. Nevermind the question of what qualifies as hate speech, and who will be the arbiter, and the extreme likelihood that anti-hate speech policies would be used by the politically powerful to suppress their opponents (look at how much criticism of George W. Bush could be considered hate speech). Nevermind all that, because the premise against hate speech is wrong.
Does it seek to tear down? Yes. But, it also seeks to build up. When we call the Maroon's editorial staff a bunch of limp dicked retarded fascist douche nozzles, it's not just to tear them down, but to simultaneously build up the concept of free speech and individual liberty. It is rare for any speech critical of another or a group to not serve some purpose of building up some other individual or group. That doesn't mean the speech is good, but it does mean that the Maroon's distinction between hate speech and constructive speech is fundamentally flawed.
What the Maroon would have banned isn't speech that seeks to tear down rather than build it. It would ban that which stings those they want to help, which builds up that which they would tear down.
The anti-hate speech crusade at Chicago comes largely from an incident in which a student (Derek Caquelin) claimed his Facebook account was hacked and then used to post a hateful message. That message called out another student who is a leader in the fight against micro(!)aggressions. It said, in part, "you are next. None of your profiles are safe. This is the beginning of our rape season."
Turns out, the alleged hacking victim posted the message himself. And this is why we must be extra-cautious when it comes to giving away any of our rights. Ben Franklin famously said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That trade, while ill-advised, is at least rational in its own way. But what Caquelin and his ilk want us to do is trade essential liberty to purchase exactly as much safety as we already had. It's giving away freedom to stop an evil that exists only in the imagination.
We'll end this post with a little snippet from the Declaration of Independence: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Is there any doubt that such a description of a man could be describe as derived from hatred? Though no television station would bleep the term because it lacks vulgarity, there are few things Americans abhor more than a tyrant. Such language would not be allowed, if Caquelin or the The Chicago Maroon editors had their way, but who could say this language, for all its tearing down, does not, in the end, seek to build up?