Leave The Ivory Tower Alone: KKK at UT

The University of Texas has refused to rename a dorm named for William Simkins, a notoriously racist law professor at UT from the early 20th century.  Apparently, he used to espouse racist views during his classes and suggested that "Negros" should not be allowed in classes where there were lots of women.

While I agree that his comments were despicable, they were absolutely no different from the views of most other Americans at the time.  If we are going to rename this building why not rename EVERY building named for someone who lived during slavery?  Jefferson would disappear from campuses everywhere.  As would about half of all the names on buildings around campus.

We all recognize slavery as a moral atrocity from history, but these people were honored for their dedication and service to the school, not their social views.  Simkins may have been a D-bag, but he served the school and offered his time and life to education (even though he may have failed to provide it objectively at times).  He is still worthy of praise for that service.  He should not be crucified for social views, especially views that were mainstream at the time.  One of the most difficult tasks of any good historian is not to judge past figures by today's moral standards.  Otherwise, EVERY historical figure would be found wanting.

Everyone should chill out on this topic and remember that you don't need to get the school to change the name in order to draw attention to the topic.  In fact, keeping the name might offer a valuable learning experience for the students who live in that dorm if someone had the motivation and ingenuity to use it.

Seriously people, leave higher education alone.  Our minds are always 10-20 years ahead, but our campuses are about 10-20 years behind.  Change takes a little bit longer for us, but it always happens.  Be patient.

Common Sense.

Leave the Ivory Tower Alone: Religious Freedom on Campus

In this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, which I "borrowed" from my boss (hehe), I found a rather disturbing advertisement.  Check it out:

So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional.  Ok, these people must be stupid.  Let's find out!

I decided to visit the website, and guess what I discovered!  It's a religious freedom website.  Not just that it is a christian website.  And who is sponsoring it?  None other than the Alliance Defense Fund.  Normally I would say, "whatever this is just another rediculous ploy by religious groups to get more special privileges that no one else gets, but what really bothered me is the scare tactics they used on the main page.  Including an image of the Supreme Court house claiming that "Administrators are facing a sharp increase in costly constitutional litigation as students challenge unlawful policies." 

The attorney in charge of this organization is David French (pictured right).  David has been a practicing lawyer since graduating Harvard Law in 1994 and is the author of A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School (2002).  Clearly, a Harvard education does not guarantee intellectual ability.  Or perhaps religion is to blame for corrupting what might otherwise have been a very sound mind.  As if his book were not bad enough, Mr. French has also authored a number of reports for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a religious extremist group that advocates religious indoctrination in higher education.  Take a moment to notice how both Mr. French's organization and FIRE attempt to cloud their true efforts under the disguise of protecting individual rights, when what they mean is individual rights for christians.

Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.

1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc.  They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech.  A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy.  However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law.  So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.

2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them.  However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts.  Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus.  Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations.  So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus.  When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting.  it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.

3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees.  Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied.  It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.

4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement.  50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission.  It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders.  And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech.  I think they might start singing a different tune.

Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution.  And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.

Common Sense