The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the Office of Civil Rights is investigating a possible hate speech incident at the University of North Carolina. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to determine whose speech was hateful.
In early February, Elyse Crystall, a nontenured lecturer in the English department, sent an e-mail message to the students in her “Literature and Cultural Diversity” course, saying that [a] conservative student’s remarks were “a perfect example of privilege.”
“That a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible,” Ms. Crystall wrote in her message. She encouraged the students to use the course’s online discussion forum to debate the issue, but warned that anonymous postings would not be allowed and that “NO HATE SPEECH will be tolerated.”
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R, NC) made a federal case of this incident by encouraging OCR’s investigation, and he complained directly to the university administration as well.
“Had Ms. Crystall substituted the word ‘black’ for ‘white,’ ‘homosexual’ for ‘heterosexual,’ or ‘Muslim’ for ‘Christian,’ she would have been suspended or fired immediately,” Mr. Jones wrote to the university’s chancellor, James Moeser, in late February.
For her part, Ms. Crystall says she has been the victim of “a harassment campaign” since the incident became public.
She said that the student’s comments, made at the end of class — that homosexuality was sinful and “disgusting” — had made other students upset….
She noted that while the government could investigate her remarks as racist or sexist, it would not investigate the student’s as homophobic. “By claiming that there may have been a violation of racial discrimination, that because I called the student white, seems to be a perversion of what the civil-rights laws were meant to protect,” she said.
So, a student calls homosexuality in effect a perversion; the instructor calls the student a violent, white, privileged heterosexist and the neutral, colorblind application of civil rights laws “a perversion”; and the feds are brought in to investigate. Aren’t hate speech regulations a wonderful thing?
Perhaps the real perversion is that all this occurred in a class on “Literature and Cultural Diversity.”
UPDATE [3/29]
See David Bernstein‘s discussion of the slippery slope (my term, since this has become an increasingly refined term of art) from “hate speech” to “hostile environment” complaints.
The academic elite will not understand what they have wrought in the area of speech codes to avoid anyone every ‘feeling uncomfortable’ (i.e. creating thought crimes) until they are turned on them. If this is done a little more often, I think we’ll quickly see a consensus on abandoning this silliness.
It is past time to turn the tables on the speech code scam. It seems okay to make some people uncomfortable on university campuses, but not others. The hypocrisy of the status quo should be highlighted at every opportunity.
I was torn on this for a moment, then I wasn’t.
My personal belief is that teachers should avoid discussing their own opinions on politically volatile topics if possible. If it’s neccessary as part of the class to discuss a politically volatile topic, I believe it is better to have the students argue with each other on the topic than for the teacher to argue with the students. In that situation, a teacher would act more akin to a moderator than anything else, perhaps throwing out various facts and statistics for the students to chew on. Authority figures are a powerful influence on students, both for good and for ill.
…However, only an idiot or someone who didn’t particulairly care if they passed or failed a class would disagree with a teacher on a point without stating his point VERY well.
I lack a subscription to the Chronicle of Higher Education, so I’m working off of what you quoted here. If a teacher had said those comments about me, I honestly would not have been overly offended. Depending on what exactly he said, calling his comments violent and ‘heterosexist'(What happened to homophobic?) could be absolutely accurate.
She’s even given him a forum to respond to what she said and to allow the students he made uncomfortable to explain exactly why he made them uncomfortable. If I had the power to influence this situation, I’d punish neither of them.
I am a student at UNC-Chapel Hill. As a conservative, I rarely have the opportunity to speak my mind without being ridiculed. I have often been in a class full of liberals where I knew that anything I said would be shot down. If anyone is discriminated against at UNC-CH, it is the conservative students like the student in question. I hope this investigation finds Elyse Crystall guilty as I feel she is. She only apologized because she got caught! Perhaps this will set an example for the rest of the faculty. Personal opinions of instructors should not be taught or taken as fact!
I am a student at UNC-Chapel Hill. The student’s comments in class were derogatory and offensive. The professor was trying to protect the other students who were offended by outlining acceptable guidelines for discussion, hostile speech not being one of them. Why is that part always ignored? For instance, “Because of my religion, I believe homosexuality is wrong” is a perfectly acceptable statement of fact. “Homosexuals are sinful, disgusting and impure” is not an acceptable statement. Does a teacher not have a right to say so? In fact, UNC’s own sexual harrassment policy protects students from having to hear statements of the kind Tim said. Elyse Crystall was acting in compliance with that policy. Before you complain about the ‘discrimination’ you conservative students must endure, please consider. Does the university admit less of you? Are you attacked on the street for being conservative? Do students, in order to express their belief in the stupidity of a situation, say, “That’s conservative?” If two of you conservatives walk together, do other students say, “That’s disgusting?” Do students call you impure? Do students call you sinful? Do students tell you you are going to Hell? Do people keep small children away from you because they think you might molest them? Can you get fired from your government job because you are conservative? Right then.
I see nothing “liberal” about this. I see comments in line with the University’s sexual harrassment and sexual orientation nondiscrimation policies. If you consider those policies “liberal” and not to be taken as fact, then perhaps you should have attended a different university.
The Chapel Hill student above (let’s call him/her “PC”) misses the point, the point being the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the making of any law that abridges freedom of speech.
Yet PC believes that the professor (an employee of the state) has the right to decide which statements are “acceptable” and which are not. How does the professor gain this power, according to PC? By virtue of the school’s own sexual harrassment policy, which apparently trumps even the Constitution. But, since it trumps it for a good cause, it’s apparently OK. It does not apparently occur to the “speech code” proponents that they may not always be in charge of what kind of speech is “not acceptable” and these speech codes (couched as “harrassment policies”) will double back to bite them on the ass someday (like today). Somehow when you’re the one forced to cowtow and issue abject apologies for your “hate speech” it’s not as much fun as when you get to play victim.
Also, apparently we’re back in the 19th century, where certain groups such as women are “delicate” and must be protected from “having to hear” the wrong words. Calling the offender himself by nasty names (white, heterosexual, Christian, male – these are the ultimate derogatory terms in the PC world) apparently undoes the “violence” of having to hear him speak.
As for discrimination against conservatives vs. gays, I’ll bet you that if you did a survey of say the English department of major universities, you’d find a lot more gays than conservatives. To paraphrase, it’s easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a white male conservative to get tenure in the English department.
Elyse Crystall singles out a “a white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male” student for public abuse for using the word “disgusted” to describe a male friend’s reaction to a sexual proposition made by another male. She calls this hate speech, while holding a position at a university that regularly allows far uglier comments about men, non-minorities and Christians, both in the lecture halls and the campus papers. Imagine her sending out an email vilifying a “black gay atheist female” for expressing disgust at a sexual proposition from a man. What I find most outrageous is this: “one who vehemently denied his [white] privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has”. How hateful for someone to say they have earned what they have!! After decades of minority set asides, hiring quotas, minority only scholarships and other forms of affirmative action, Elyse Crystall is outraged that one of “those” white males might not feel so privileged or worse, that he said so out loud in HER class. Elyse Crystall wants a campus where the only debate is about how best to shut down debate, and make “white, heterosexual, Christian males” feel threatened and intimidated, as she expressed in her email.
Quotes from “PC” above:
“Before you complain about the ‘discrimination’ you conservative students must endure, please consider. Does the university admit less of you? Are you attacked on the street for being conservative? Do students, in order to express their belief in the stupidity of a situation, say, “That’s conservative?” If two of you conservatives walk together, do other students say, “That’s disgusting?” Do students call you impure? Do students call you sinful? Do students tell you you are going to Hell? Do people keep small children away from you because they think you might molest them? Can you get fired from your government job because you are conservative? Right then.”
The answers to “PC”‘s questions above are “yes”, “yes”, “yes”, “yes”, “Yes”, “yes”, “yes”, “yes”, and “yes”.
I have been discriminated against on the basis of my race, sex, and beliefs for my entire adult life. I have been indoctrinated more times than I can count in the official policy that discrimination against me is not only acceptable but is officially mandated, and if I express any opposition to it I will be removed, fired, expelled, or prosecuted for federal crimes. I have been denied countless jobs explicitly and overtly on the basis of my skin color and gender, and most recently I have been told that I will not be admitted to various educational institutions on the basis of my personal beliefs, despite having a better academic record than those who have been admitted.
In response to mikem, I don’t think it is quite a fair assessment to say that Elyse Crystall wants a campus that has shut down debate, as she encouraged students to further debate the issue using the online forum. Nor did she state that she wanted to make white, heterosexual, Christian males feel threatened. She was, in fact, speaking of a certain white, heterosexual, Christian male, and she was pointing out how he was NOT feeling threatened or intimidated.
In response to CW, I am sorry that you have experienced discrimination based on your race, sex, and beliefs. I can’t believe someone told you you were going to Hell because you were conservative. That’s…wrong. However, I was more specifically trying to dispute the claim by some UNC students that conservative students endure ‘discrimination’.
In response to IL. Amendments are not always the be all and end all, as I think precedent has shown. (For instance, background checks and wait periods for guns? Or is that another can of worms?) I thought the First Amendment could be suspended in school. I know it was in high school, where one’s right to petition was definitely revoked. A high school student is also not allowed to circulate printed material. Is that an age thing?
Finally, if the school’s own harrassment policy goes against our freedom granted by the First Amendment, why can’t we attack the harrassment policy instead of the professor? Moreover, because a ‘wrong’ was done to the student, the student receives no sanction for this incident? That reeks of hypocrisy by the University to me. I do not understand why all this is falling on Elyse Crystall’s shoulders.
As for being back in the 19th century, what would you propose? With staggering violence statistics against women, gays, and especially transgendered people (who have the highest murder rate in the nation) surely they need some form of protection? Perhaps sexual harrassment codes that amount to ‘speech monitoring’ is not the way to go about this. What would be?
Finally, I feel that any such survey of gay vs. conservative tenured English professors would hardly be indicative of a general level of discrimination. Too many confounding factors, uncontrolled variables, causation vs. correlation, etc. Besides, what about gay vs. conservative economists? More evidence than just this would be necessary for me to begin to believe conservatives face discrimination comparable to homosexuals. Not to mention those transgendered…
PC, by referring to the student as a “white, heterosexual, Christian male,” Crystall effectively targeted anyone who as well falls into those categories. I’m opposed to hate speech codes, but can see the rationale behind them which is that by pointing out a person’s race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc., as part of an attack on him, one is as well threatening anyone else who fits those criteria. If I say “you fool” I’m just directing my contempt at one person, but if I say “you Hindu fool” it seems appropriate that other Hindus, though not directly targeted, might take offense at my comment.
Why couldn’t Crystall have in her email simply referred to the student as “one student” or “an individual?”
“Why couldn’t Crystall have in her email simply referred to the student as ‘one student’ or ‘an individual?'”
Good question.
Oh, and while I’m all for the colorblind application of stuff, and I’m also anti-affirmative action, it does seem that the professor has a point. Civil-rights laws were meant to protect minorities. Is this not a fact? Thus using the laws against someone for calling a student white does, in fact, seem to be a perversion of what they were meant to protect. No?
PC,
You are polite and articulate, so I will not use sarcasm.
“Shutting down debate” by allowing only comments she deems acceptable to be expressed without calling derisive attention, publicly, to the students race, sex, sexual orientation and religious beliefs before attacking him for “violent” speech.
“…that a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible.”
I read that as a complaint against the fact that he does “not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable”. Am I wrong? Is it right for her to wish that? Would you feel the same if she complained about a black student not feeling ” marked or threatened or vulnerable” for expressing disgust at whites? Would she still have a job?
As for the rest, if you think that she would have reacted the same way to similar comments made about men or heterosexuals or “white, heterosexual, Christian male[s]”, then I must, with all respect, question your honesty. If, as your comment implies, you believe that others are not held to the same standards as “white, heterosexual, Christian male[s]”, but for good historical reasons, then I think that is sad indeed. I don’t see how her actions or reputation can be salvaged, especially since she has made clear that her apology was insincere and that she felt empowered by university standards to the do the same again.
I could go into her calling the student’s remarks “violent” and how often such obvious falsehoods are used to censor opinion on campus, but I’m tired. You seem like a reasonable person PC, so just turn it around as I suggested in my original post. Is that scenario even possible on campus?
I am actually in Elyse Crystall’s class. I think none of you have the right to comment on the situation because only our class knows what exactly happened and the media has manipulated the entire situation from the beginning so no one is reading a true and complete account of what happened. What happened did so to the students and teacher of the class. I am completely against a federal investigation, which would violate my rights as a student of the class.
I have been reading online blogs and discussion groups all night in regards to privelge: male, white, heterosexual, able elitist, and I have yet to come across a post where someone defending the idea that one who belongs to aforementioned groups cannot have similar vitriolic damage done to them because of the power dynamic that exists between the priveleged and the oppressed. I assume that the persons contributing to this discussion are mostly, if not all Americans. As such we have been raised with the creed, or at least gestalt, of the sacred cow of equality. The idea of equal protection under the law, our 14th amendment, has created an atmosphere whereby this modality has unfortunately transfered to our socio-cultural sphere. A white, christian, heterosexual male has more social power because of greater acceptance in society as a whole. Also, history has favored his ancestors, not necassarily economically, but socially, his potential to succeed in social situations where he does not have to confront how the misuse of power based on categories in the past favors him indirectly. Therefore the social value this man puts him in a place where the oppressed cannot lob labels with the same power. Their words are marginalized because they are otherized before they speak. They do not have to be taken seriously because they are “angry,” “hateful,” or “misguided.” When people speak of privelege they refer to a hierarchy of value on one’s voice as represented in popular media, congress, in homes, and in university classroms.
Will: I could ask you to explain how a federal investigation will violate your rights as a student, but it is not necessary. You are certainly one of a few University students to have such an aversion for calling in outside agencies to investigate such violations. What I will point out is that your rights as a student (to not be bothered, or questioned?) do not outweigh his rights as a student, especially since, I assume, you are not a victim of similar public harassment. I have yet to see a single argument in favor of Crystall that does not seem to rely on the denying of equal rights to “white, heterosexual, Christian male[s]”. I would greatly appreciate if one of Crystall’s supporters would respond to the very simple scenario put forth by others and myself. Turn it around. Would she still have her job? Should we depend on objectively racist and sexist instructors to decide which of our sons and daughters deserve to be free from public harassment?
Lastly, as to others having no right to comment on the scandal: You will learn otherwise after you finish Crystall’s course and study the First Amendment.
Dear mikem,
You are disguting. I don’t want to think about what you and your sexual partner do. You are morally impure. We live in a Christian society so what you do with your sexual partner is a sin. You and your partner cannot promote life. I don’t what to have to explain to my child if I see you and your partner kissing or holding hands in public.
These were comments almost similar to ones said in my class. I know that I have the legal right to say this to you, but I don’t think this speech is appropriate for a classroom discussion because it is hate speech. And what’s wrong with a teacher saying that that is not appropriate speech to say? Why can’t a teacher stand up and say that she is not going to put up with it because it is harmful to others in the class? Don’t you think people have the ability to comment in a respectful way? Your total ignorance of the situation is very frusterating.
A federal investigation has the potential to violate my rights because they can seize messages on our discussion forum, class emails, class assignments and papers, and they are going to interview us. All of this disrupts my learning as a student and my participation in class. I have a right as a student to learn in a safe and stable environment free from foreign interfearances.
I had one more point I forgot to make. In the email when Dr. Crystall called the student a white, heterosexual, Christian male, these were all characteristics that were evident or self-identified by the student. It would be ridiculous if this were a civil rights violation because she was pointing out these obvious characteristics. And everyone in class knew who had made the harmful comments and that’s why the individual and his comments were pointed out as unacceptable in a classroom setting.
Will,
Thanks for replying. I sincerely appreciate it.
The recitation you provide of additional remarks that the student inflicted on you and your classmates is not news. Anyone following this issue is aware that Crystall and her supporters have had their repressed memories of the incident liberated since their initial description of the events. The problem is that objective observers are rightfully suspicious of such convenient additions to the “charges” against the student. With that said, I would add that in a class discussion along the lines of “Why do heterosexuals feel threatened by gays?”, even what you add appears to be simply an honest admission by a student that has not yet learned that his comments should be tailored to Crystall’s beliefs and feelings and that he should lie when asked to join in such discussions. Perhaps Crystall should have specified that only persons not feeling threatened should explain why they feel threatened. “Violent” speech, as Crystall described his, would be along the lines of “gay males should be castrated”. In fact, that is precisely the type of remark proudly voiced by some radical feminists, except at males in general. It is the kind of remark that generates chuckles on campuses, as long as it is directed against the right target. The student made no such calls to violence.
“[E]veryone in class knew who had made the harmful comments”. EXACTLY! You are right on the money. So her purpose in publicly attacking him as a “white, heterosexual, Christian male” instead of “a student” is derisive and racist, sexist…, not for identification purposes. She even complains about him “not feel[ing] marked or threatened or vulnerable”. Do you believe it is appropriate for a person in a position of authority to publicly voice such ugly sentiment? I will once more propose a scenario for your consideration and ask again for an answer. John is an African American student in Crystall’s class. In a discussion on why black Americans feel threatened by whites he states that “whites are despicable, they are all racists and dishonest. I hate them and feel disgust in their presence”. Crystall then sends out an email calling his words “violent” and states, “That a young black male should feel free to voice such hateful remarks without feeling marked or threatened or vulnerable…” Forgive me Will, but you and other supporters of Crystall will never convince anyone that she would not be condemned and fired for such actions, forthwith. Again Will, turn it around. I have no doubt that whatever the student actually said, it made some or most of his classmates uncomfortable. The problem is, your university education was not originally designed to “confront” you with your own views. More specifically in this instance, to hold a discussion on how or why heterosexual males feel threatened by gays and then be SHOCKED to hear from one that does feel threatened is simply naive.
Regardless of how you and your fellow supporters feel about what he said, he certainly had the right to state his feelings. That was the purpose of the discussion, correct? Crystall could have simply expressed her own views. You could have countered with your opinion. Maybe you did. But for Crystall to then publicly deride him as a “white, heterosexual, Christian male”, calling his speech “violent” followed by a complaint that he does not feel “not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable” strikes most as obviously more threatening than any remark he made. Turn it around.
Regarding your objection to having emails read by investigators: I understand you and your objections. From what little has been released in the news, my understanding of why this is being done relates to my initial point. Instead of relying on the suddenly shifting memories of those who are rallying to protect Crystall’s damaged reputation, investigators are looking for contemporary accounts that are not as amenable to revision. But I do sympathize with you.
Thanks again for your reply and best wishes to you.
Okay, so who knows if anyone even reads this anymore, but here goes.
Crystall did not say that she wished the poor heterosexual white Christian male to feel threatened. She said that the fact that he didn’t was an example of privilege.
I see your point in that if the situation were reversed, Crystall’s chances would be slim. To this I have two things to say. Firstly, the situation ISN’T reversed. It is how it is. Secondly, everyone is NOT equal, no matter how much we would like for them to be. White heterosexual Christian males get paid more and killed less, just for example. Thus, turning the argument around does not exactly apply to the situation. While I agree ideally it should, that is not how our real and present world works.
A point I don’t understand: Why do you defend the student’s sexual-orientationist comments, saying that was what the discussion was about, while condemning the teacher for pointing out an example of privilege, when that was what the discussion was about? Why is being racist a bigger crime than being sexual-orientationist? (I say sexual-orientationist because heteronormative or heterocentric don’t connote the same inequity and hate that the “ist” words do).
What’s wrong with it?
That’s what the America Blog asks about college speech codes and “rules of behavior.” Sarcastically stating “Holy cow! Next thing you know those darn colleges are going to tell us women have the right to vote and black people can…