My chair outlined briefly for Racist Rebecca why we were meeting: because Racist Rebecca was offended that I had said, "I'm sorry to hear you're a racist. I thought better of you," when she expressed incredulity that America had re-elected a "the missing link/a monkey" the day after Election Day.
Racist Rebecca did not deny that this had happened and claimed that, as a student in the United States of America, "I have First Amendment Rights, and if I say how I feel, that's protected." My chair outlined for her that hate speech was not protected under any laws, and that she had violated not only the right to speak, but that of every person on campus who must abide by the code of student conduct to respect all persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and other characteristics.
My chair also outlined that it was within my rights to call her out in public since she had made the statement in public. Racist Rebecca started to bristle.
"But I'm not a racist," Racist Rebecca then piped up. "It's not my fault Obama looks like the missing link. Besides, people claim he's only half black and so it's not really racist if no one even knows what race he is."
At this point, my chair interrupted her to say: "Your comments and conduct are unacceptable. I am personally starting disciplinary proceedings against you." She explained why what Racist Rebecca had said was unacceptable, all the while watching as Racist Rebecca vehemently shook her head in denial.
Observing that his girlfriend was distressed, Racist Rebecca's boyfriend jumped in to try to defend her by following her argument that if one's race is ambiguous, one's racist comments are not truly racist. At that point, my chair warned him that he, too, would be guilty of unbecoming conduct if he continued. He was smart enough to shut up. Racist Rebecca, however, was not. She attempted to claim that we had "set her up" by calling this meeting (forgetting that SHE was the one who had requested the meeting) and hadn't allowed adequate time to defend herself.
My chair then outlined that it would be at my discretion to allow her to remain in the class (oh-fucking-great) and adjourned the meeting. This will continue after Thanksgiving with a more formal disciplinary hearing. Racist Rebecca did not show up to class all week.
The clincher: on their way out, Racist Rebecca's boyfriend said to her: "Is your professor black? Doesn't look black," and Racist Rebecca said, "I don't know. They all look alike to me."
--An update with more info is in the comments below.
Oh. My. Thor.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I got. I'm utterly appalled.
Your chair has witnessed this awful display of racism and has explained to the student how she was being racist. You've got enough evidence to remove her from class. You should claim that hearing her say "They all look alike to me," was the last straw, that you will not stand for racism like that, and that she is no longer welcome in your class. Students who are acting inappropriately but who have convinced themselves otherwise need something to help them realize how terrible they're being, and being kicked out of class just might do it.
ReplyDeleteNothing helps people who think that way. The day after the election I commented that in a couple of states a same sex couple could not get married but they could get stoned. I asked, "Who do want driving in the lane beside you, someone who's gay and married or someone who just smoked a joint?" To which a student answered, "But the gay guy is getting head cause that's what they do."
DeleteOMG, I hear comments like this from students who think they're being funny. They're not funny, and when I ask, seemingly innocently, "What do you mean?" they then suddenly realize how offensive their comments are and they try to back away from having made that judgment.
DeleteBest. Meeting. Ever.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Your chair has given you permission to kick her out, so do it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know which shocks me more: that a young person believes that stuff, or that she and her boyfriend think it's fine to say it in public, at least to people who don't "look black." Makes me wonder about the conversations they grew up with at home.
I'm befuddled about their defense of racism, too. Often, when I hear students saying stupid shit, and call them on it, they'll back down and hang their heads claiming they were only joking... not the case with these two.
DeleteI am so glad to hear that your chair was very supportive. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see a chair stick up for faculty but I don't follow one thing. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment, though colleges have some latitude in restricting speech.
ReplyDeleteI'm also bothered by the chair's handling of the boyfriend. Yes, he's an idiot. His argument that insulting a multiracial person cannot be racist is borne of ignorance, perhaps willful ignorance. Let's agree on that. Still, a person should be able to question how the term racist should be applied to a speaker. Such questions should not lead to charges of racism leveled against the boyfriend.
I'm torn about this issue.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I agree with everyone's disgust at Racist Rebecca, at what she said, and at her complete ignorance and bigotry. I also applaud Contemplative Cynic for calling her out on her racism in class, in front of everyone. That's precisely what bigots like this need--a good public humiliation.
On the other hand, especially if you teach at a public institution, Racist Rebecca does indeed have a point about her first amendment rights, and your department chair was incorrect to say that hate speech is not protected.
Hate speech is not even a recognized category of speech in first amendment constitutional law. While many universities have passed hate speech codes and civility codes, most constitutional lawyers are of the belief that such codes are drawn far too broadly, and groups like the ACLU and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have consistently taken universities to task for their excessively restrictive speech codes.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that offensive speech, or speech that makes other people upset or uncomfortable, can be prohibited or regulated by the government. Furthermore, a whole slew of rulings in first amendment cases make very clear that any restrictions on speech by the government, or by a public institution, need to pass a much higher threshold than simply, as the Supreme court said in Texas v. Johnson, that "society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."
The chair correctly told Racist Rebecca that she was, indeed, being racist. He also correctly informed her that, because she aired her opinion in a public setting, Contemplative Cynic was well within his or her right to point out her racism. In fact, this is precisely why freedom of expression is a good thing: because it allows people who see and recognize bigotry and ignorance to point it out for everyone else. But I think that disciplinary proceedings in a case like this are very problematic, especially if this is a public institution.
I also agree with Beaker Ben about the handling of the boyfriend. Personally, I think that the boyfriend should have been refused entry, and that the student should have been told to bring someone who wasn't so closely connected to her personally. Once he was allowed to attend, however, he should have been allowed considerable latitude to act as her advocate, and to help her make her case, without being accused of the same thing. It's a bit like telling a lawyer to shut up or you'll charge him along with his client. Very bad form.
I recognize that this is unlikely to be a well-supported opinion on CM, and indeed some of my lefty and progressive friends and colleagues in academia, people who I like and respect, disagree with me on this issue. I believe, however, that the way to combat stupid and offensive and ignorant and bigoted speech is not simply to tell people to shut up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome more details/clarification for those who are concerned about whether this is a public or private institution and whether the boyfriend was dealt with unfairly:
DeleteI teach at a Christian church-affiliated SLAC, so it is not a public institution, although I don't think that matters much if students are spewing racist rhetoric. Our Student Conduct Code (which all students have to sign that they will abide by) forbids use of hate rhetoric (and action) against anyone, so while my chair is mistaken about the First Amendment, it is actually irrelevant to this context.
The boyfriend's presence and input was also irrelevant because he was not in the classroom to witness the event, but RR had requested that he attend the meeting with her for emotional support, so that was granted. He probably shouldn't have been allowed in, but my chair was trying to be accommodating. This meeting was not one we had set up to discipline RR or even ban her from the classroom. RR had requested this meeting to complain against my labeling of her as a racist, and that's what this meeting was about.
Yes, the boyfriend's defense of Racist Rebecca was simply a reiteration of what she had been saying, but he was doing so in a confrontational manner (so he wasn't being called racist, but was being warned not to yell, which I didn't clarify above). However, this meeting wasn't to discipline anyone, so no defense of HER was needed. The chair didn't want to get into an argument with him over something so completely illogical and irrelevant when he was so worked up. She merely wanted to determine whether RR had a legitimate complaint. She determined very quickly that my labeling of RR as a racist had not been unwarranted, and she determined that I was, at that point, then within my rights to decide whether RR be allowed to continue in the class, since she had broken the class rule of respecting others, as well as the Student Code of Conduct. I made no ruling, either way.
During the actual disciplinary proceedings, which my chair has brought to the disciplinary committee, RR is being cited as having displayed two instances of racist comments on campus and in the presence of others. She has the right to have an advocate who will determine whether she has broken the student code of conduct. Her boyfriend can advocate for her if she chooses him (if I were her, I'd pick someone else). That is where she has a chance to defend whether she has been in violation of the code. The disciplinary committee also determines the punishment, which, for such offenses, which often result in the student needing to take a class in racial awareness.
I teach at a Christian church-affiliated SLAC, so it is not a public institution...
DeleteFair enough. If you're at a private, church-affiliated institution, then most of what I wrote above would not be applicable. Private institutions can legally require, and legally enforce speech codes and codes of conduct that would be unconstitutional at public institutions. There are some constitutional restrictions on private institutions, especially those that accept federal money, but those apply mainly to issues such as employment discrimination and not to issues such as codes of conduct and speech codes.
...although I don't think that matters much if students are spewing racist rhetoric.
Here, you are precisely wrong. If your university was, indeed, a public institution, your code of conduct would most likely not be enforceable in this case, even though the student was "spewing racist rhetoric." Like "hate speech," the category of "racist rhetoric" is not one that is recognized in constitutional law, and you can't stop people from comparing African Americans to monkeys just because it is a ridiculous and offensive and racist comparison.
As I've already said, I applaud you for calling out Racist Rebecca in class. That was excellent work, and it's something that many faculty might not have the courage to do. I also accept that your private institution has the right to enforce its code of conduct in this case.
I'm still, however, somewhat troubled when institutions (even private institutions) that are supposed to exemplify the free exchange of ideas take measures to shut down unpleasant and unpopular speech through disciplinary action rather than exposing and countering it in the open air of public opinion and the marketplace of ideas.
I've taught at state universities where hate rhetoric and racist comments were also not tolerated, though, and were punishable. I never had any instances of this happening in classes, so I'm not sure how they were handled...
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree that sometimes, especially at a Christian college, freedom of speech and a right to assemble can be restricted when students attempt to dialogue about anything that doesn't support the Christian college's agenda or mission.
This happens for faculty/staff, as well, who do not agree with the church's position on certain things (such as ordination of women, or whether homosexuality is a sin). So, yes, I agree that having a restriction on certain speech is always a touchy and difficult line to draw and I have had my own battles with Administration (on behalf of students) about whether certain student groups have a right to assemble on campus.
I also know, however, that by choosing to work for the institution, I sign a statement that I will abide by its rules and edicts, as do students who choose to attend. I
I've taught at state universities where hate rhetoric and racist comments were also not tolerated, though, and were punishable. I never had any instances of this happening in classes, so I'm not sure how they were handled...
DeleteI'm not denying that many public institutions have such codes. I'm also aware that plenty of them punish students for violating those codes. It still doesn't mean that the codes themselves are legal. Basically, how these things are usually handled is that the university punishes the student, who then either accepts the punishment, or chooses to pursue the issue as a matter of constitutionally-protected speech. In the latter cases, the student is often vindicated.
There are many public institutions with speech codes and codes of conduct that would probably not pass constitutional muster, and in many cases this persists precisely because no-one pursues any action against the institutions in question. Often, students themselves don't even realize that the restrictions on their speech at public universities are sometimes unconstitutional. In other cases, the universities sometimes back down in particular cases when organizations like the ACLU or FIRE get involved.
At my own institution, there was an incident few years back where the administration wanted to discipline some students for something that they had written in a student publication. The ACLU and FIRE both wrote to the university and made very clear that what the university was doing was unconstitutional, and that if the administration pursued the action, these organizations would defend the students in question. The university rescinded its disciplinary charges.
One of the messy things about living in a free society is that there will be times when we won't like what other people say. There is, however, no constitutional right to go through your life without being offended by somebody else's opinion.
I am reluctant to bring up a small point because it can distract from the larger picture, which is that you called out a racist and your department head backed you up. That success almost disqualifies you from posting on College Misery.
DeleteI'm interested in the procedural aspects. A chat with the professor and the department head seems somewhat confrontational so you statement that "this meeting wasn't to discipline anyone, so no defense of HER was needed" would not seem reasonable from the student's perspective, even though it may be procedurally correct.
BB, I did not ask for a meeting with her. It would have been within my right to meet with me to discuss her comment and how it violated the classroom policy of respect. That is not what happened. I called her out in class, and moved on to the lesson. I figured the matter was over.
DeleteSHE demanded a meeting with me and the chair. In fact, in her email to us, she demanded that we meet with her to get a formal apology over having been labeled a racist in front of her classmates. She also demanded that a witness be present to determine that an apology was, in fact, given.
I don't want to add much more to the details because it would be clear to those who are involved who I am, and I don't have tenure.
DeleteThree words: She's disrupting class.
DeleteWhat do you mean, EMH? She made a comment, I responded. End of story, as far as class goes.
DeleteWhat is your definition of "disruptive" behavior?
DeleteComments that be offensive to other students (ie. racial comments).
Delete*shrugs shoulders*
I mean "may be" (haven't had coffee yet).
DeleteOh, I see. I guess that would be classified as such, but since students say things that offend me all the times (usually stupid, air-headed comments), I may want to not include that as my definition of 'disruptive.' :o) I will keep this in mind if RR decides to pursue this further.
DeleteWell said, Defunct Adjunct! I forget whether the Contemplative Cynic teaches at a public or private institution: if private, perhaps the school requires subscriptions to a speech code? Hmm, I wonder how that stacks up with the receipt of public monies, Federal loans, etc. Anyway, I agree with you, better to call racism by name than impose a speech code.
ReplyDeleteThe Cynic quoted the student (RR) as having said, "I don't know. They all look alike to me."
ReplyDeleteWhen I read that, I thought the student was referring to proffies. And, indeed, all proffies do seem to look alike to many students.
nice to hear that your chair supported you. So many on CM have chairs that don't. Hang in there!!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm missing something, but questions of re: constitutionality actually do seem to be missing the point. The meeting was to determine whether or not CC was entitled to call her a racist. Even if we grant that she was entitled to say what she said, CC seems to be entitled to call her a racist if what she said was, well, racist.
ReplyDeleteCharges of racism can have a chilling effect on discourse, yes, and so it's not cool to use the term as a weapon. But when someone says something that no sane person could deny is racist, and if that person's right to say such things is protected, then it stands to reason that others are entitled to say "Hey, guess what? You're racist."
As far as I'm concerned, the crux of the matter isn't the First Amendment issue, it's Rebecca's saying "But I'm not a racist. It's not my fault Obama looks like the missing link. Besides, people claim he's only half black and so it's not really racist if no one even knows what race he is." If she could get others to believe that a reasonable person *could* accept her logic, then I think she'd have a case. CC would have been bullying her. But she failed. Epic fail, as I assume my students would say. To paraphrase a great line, if she were a little smarter she'd realize how stupid she sounds.
The issue of the first amendment is relevant only to the chair's comments, as related by CC.
DeleteMy (definitely amateur) perception of the first amendment is that racist speech is protected.
ReplyDeleteAs is the observation that the speech of another is racist.
The first amendment isn't there to protect popular or politically correct speech; it's there to protect unpopular speech.
This only relates to the part where idiot bf asked if CC was black.... My Norwegian mother used to run a day care for children of single parents. The county placed a lot of the kids. The county worker was flipping through potential cases in front of her and muttered "...not that one.. ok this one...oh no!..." to herself while she searched her folders. My mother wanted more placements and asked about the files that had been put back in the brief case. The county worker then said "oh you don't want those people - I try to keep them all together". Completely confused, my mother asked if they were all siblings or something because she didn't understand. The woman then said something like "maybe who knows - you know what they're like - they probably have a few different fathers and one mother ha ha ha" at which point my mother realized they were black children. She was stunned and said "Are you keeping the black and white placements separate!!" and because she was offended, the county worker surmised that my NORWEGIAN mother must be black. She blushed a little and said "Sorry I never saw one of you with such light eyes before".
ReplyDeleteGood grief. People come to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions to maintain their belief system, don't they? I am white and my adopted boys are black. We've been the recipients of some screamers, too.
DeleteMy wife's (English) mother told her that if she married a black man their babies would have one white arm and one black arm...
DeleteAs a person of mixed race (I mean, who isn't?), I can attest that, indeed, parts of my body are of differing color. :o)
DeleteOh God, my dear Cynic! How horrible! What a scene! As Albert Einstein put it, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." I am thinking that your college probably has a policy about hate speech, and also how nice it was that your Chair jumped right into the fire with you.
ReplyDeletePlease keep us posted on all developments!
I think a more fitting punishment would be to kick her out of your class and then have the dean make her spend time with a multi-cultural or racial association on campus for a minimum of 100 hours. If she still doesn't learn anything, at least you have the pleasure of knowing that she was very uncomfortable for an extended amount of time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'd want to inflict her on the people in the group.
DeleteI'm guessing the disciplinary committee will demand she take a class in racial and ethnic sensitivity, but yeah, who wants to deal with HER in such a class? I am sure the professors who teach those classes, however, are better equipped than I to address racist comments and attitudes in class.
DeleteWe had an entire political campaign based on racist dog-whistles: food stamp presidents! free stuff! NOT an American! Born in Kenya! illegal immigrants voting! busloads of urban voters! tell the NAACP they should ask for jobs not welfare, and, my personal favorite BLAH PEOPLE! I'm surprised we haven't heard more comments like Rebecca's.
ReplyDeleteI'm a really strong believer that, in general public discourse, the remedy for racist and other inappropriate speech is more speech. That makes me suspicious of speech codes at public universities (private institutions do, indeed, get to set their own rules within reason, e.g. like the Woolworth's lunch counter, they can't bar people on the basis of race). On the other hand, there are some limits on the kinds of discourse that can take place in the classroom: for instance, a student's right to talk any time (s)he chooses, or to speak on subjects that, the professor's professional opinion, are not germane to the subject of the class (or even to the goal of a particular exercise in a particular class), is limited. I can imagine the level of racist, sexist, and/or homophobic comments in a classroom rising to a level that made it difficult for a student who belonged to one of the targeted groups (and/or one who simply sympathized with the targeted groups -- perhaps one with a relative or close friend who belonged to one of the groups) to concentrate. The concept of "hostile environment" describes a similar phenomenon in the workplace. It may be that the principle that a comment must be germane to the work of the class should be enough to control this sort of problem, but I'm not sure. It may be appropriate to have some sort of speech code or covenant for classroom exchanges. It may also be appropriate to have some limits to what can be said to or yelled at students as they try to navigate their way across campus, through the dorms, the dining hall, etc. (or perhaps those might be covered by laws controlling harassment, stalking, and the like; I'm not sure). On the other hand, at least at a public college, I'd argue that there probably *shouldn't* be limits to the non-personalized opinions that students can express in public areas, even areas through which students have to pass on the way to class, meals, etc. If a student wants to hold a sign or post a flyer arguing that people of African (or whatever) descent, or women, or whoever are by nature unsuited to hold public office in those areas, I think I support that student's right to do so (while utterly disagreeing with hir). But then I recall the photographs I've seen of the protests at the desegregation of Mississippi and other public universities, and wonder how black students were able to study under those conditions, and whether they should have been forced to do so. It's not an easy question.
ReplyDeleteCynic, I'm glad the Rebecca question seems to have been (mostly) resolved. I, too, think it should have ended after you called her out in class. Given her failure to accept your authority then, her flouting of an conduct code she singed, and her boyfriend's very personalized comments about you, I think you'd be perfectly justified in banning her from your classroom. Among other things, it doesn't seem like an environment in which she's likely to learn (and I'd be worried that the next exchange will be over whether her grades -- whatever they are -- represent retaliation on your part).
Thanks, CC, I appreciate your perspective (always), especially given that I hadn't even considered her claiming that grades might be retaliatory, and, given her boldness so far, I can now envision her petitioning for all kinds of things. I suppose since there is a final essay and the final exam due, I could take precautions to get a second blind read, just in case...
Delete"in general public discourse, the remedy for racist and other inappropriate speech is more speech."
Delete"the only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" Al Smith