Home | Away

Monday, February 20, 2006

A matter of principle

Learned scholar and public intellectual Dr. Mike Adams visited Penn State last week, hosted by the Young Americans for Freedom, and he was apparently a big hit.  I didn’t attend his talk, because it was kind of nice outside that evening and I wanted to spend some time with the blast-ended skrewts in my back yard.  I assumed that it would be standard fare, and when I heard that the talk included a complaint about The Vagina Monologues (Dr. Adams feels that the play demeans women, and as a tireless fighter for women’s rights, he considers it a setback to his cause), I wasn’t surprised.  But I also noticed in the next day’s paper that Adams had had some curious things to say about the Stalinist gulag that is Penn State:

“Penn State has an unconstitutional speech code, and something has to be done about it,” he said. “If you reach a public university’s funding, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish.”

Let me take the second remark first.  If you “reach” Penn State’s funding, you actually won’t be amazed at what you can accomplish.  I’ve said it before, but I don’t mind saying it again: twenty years ago, forty-five percent of Penn State’s budget was provided by public funds, and in-state tuition was $2562.  Our level of state support is now down to ten percent, and in-state tuition is $11,508.  So you could say that students who ask their state legislators to cut Penn State’s budget because of the campus “speech code” are basically cutting off their noses to spite their faces, except that you’d have to acknowledge that we’re talking about some really tiny noses.

Besides, what’s really stunning is the “unconstitutional speech code” remark itself.  For in reality, dear reality-based friends, Penn State doesn’t have a speech code.  It has the “Penn State Principles,” which are mailed to all entering students.  Here they are:

I will respect the dignity of all individuals within the Penn State community;

I will practice academic integrity;

I will demonstrate social and personal responsibility;

I will be responsible for my own academic progress and agree to comply with all University policies.

That’s about it.  Play nice, don’t cheat, don’t get drunk and break things, and meet your graduation requirements.  It’s really not too much to ask.  The full version is available on the Penn State website, in .pdf format.

But you can already see why these principles would be controversial in some quarters.  No one, to my knowledge, complains about principles two through four, but the first one—well, for conservatarians of a certain stripe, it’s right up there with the work of the Gang of Four (no, not the band):

The University is committed to creating and maintaining an educational environment that respects the right of all individuals to participate fully in the community.  Actions motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance violate this principle.  I will not engage in any behaviors that compromise or demean the dignity of individuals or groups, including intimidation, stalking, harassment, discrimination, taunting, ridiculing, insulting, or acts of violence.  I will demonstrate respect for others by striving to learn from differences between people, ideas, and opinions and by avoiding behaviors that inhibit the ability of other community members to feel safe or welcome as they pursue their academic goals.

This principle clearly violates Article II, section II of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates, in relevant part, that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to stalk and harass Individuals and Groups, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall take care, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to taunt, ridicule, and insult whichever Individuals and Groups he so chuses.” Therefore, as Constitutional scholar Dr. Mike Adams has pointed out, it is unconstitutional.

Worse still, this Penn State Principle violates some individuals’ “natural law” right to compromise or demean the dignity of others, and in that sense it is profoundly self-contradictory, insofar as it clearly compromises the dignity of individuals and groups whose very purpose it is to compromise the dignity of other individuals and groups.

Now, seriously, folks, you know I’m opposed to campus speech codes, and opposed to the various kangaroo (or water-buffalo) courts that sprung up around them.  But this isn’t a speech code.  It’s just a document that says, “here are some basic ground rules for civility; while you’re here, we expect you to be civil to one another.” It doesn’t have an enforcement apparatus; there are no black helicopters scanning the Penn State campuses for hate criminals and roving gangs of insulters.  It’s just . . . um, just a statement of principles.  Like it says.

And yet, in one very wingnutty wing of the persecuted-campus-conservative movement, this document is taken as Exhibit A of everything that’s wrong with academe.  I’ve had a few exchanges with that wing, as you know, and when it comes to Penn State’s so-called “speech code,” the conversation tends to go something like this:

Me: Have a nice day!

Very wingnutty winger: Don’t you tell me what kind of day to have!  You are violating my rights!

So just for future reference, whenever someone talks about Penn State’s “speech code,” you know you’re in the presence of Advanced Wingnuttery.  And if you hear someone talking about Penn State’s “unconstitutional speech code,” kneel and bow your head!  You are in the presence of a member of the Royal Family of Wingnuttia.

Addendum: readers who click on the magic Internets hyperlink marked by the words “tireless fighter for women’s rights,” near the top of this post, will discover in short order why Dr. Adams would be so offended by the Penn State Principles.  Here’s the first paragraph of Dr. Adams’ long-running series, “Why I Don’t Take Feminists Seriously”:

Dear Daisy:

First of all, let me tell you how thrilled I am to receive hate mail from a feminist named “Daisy.” I can’t think of many names—with the possible exceptions of Coco, Mercedes, and Jasmine—that could make you sound less like a feminist and more like a stripper in a club that offers two-dollar table dances.

Daisy? I mean, I get Coco and Mercedes and Jasmine: some people might think immediately of Coco Fusco or Mercedes Ruehl or Jasmine Guy, and some people might think immediately of strippers in cheap clubs.  I guess it takes all kinds to make a world!  But Daisy?  How odd.  I suppose it all depends on whether you’re thinking about Daisy Miller, Daisy Buchanan, or Daisy Fuentes.

Posted by Michael on 02/20 at 02:53 PM
(76) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages