Thu 28 Feb 2008
The student who started the WSO thread (mentioned here) now wants the University of Colorado to punish the offensive student.
From: Sarah.S.Lee@williams.edu [mailto:Sarah.S.Lee@williams.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:52 PM
To: G.P. “Bud” Peterson
Subject: Response to Racist ArticleDear Chancellor Peterson,
My name is Sarah Lee and I am currently a sophomore at Williams College in Williamstown, MA. On February 21, a friend sent me an email with the article “If it’s war the Asians want… It’s war they’ll get” by Max Karson. Although I believe that free speech is a vital foundation of our country, I was appalled that a school publication would publish an article so racist, offensive, and disgusting.
As a Korean American, I have always been the victim of stereotypes and I felt that this article presumed many harmful stereotypes that I am working to fight against. I am the co-chair of the Korean students organization on campus, and sent the article to the Korean club and Asian American students organization. I received many hurt responses, confused why this article would be printed and asking for some type of explanation. I also initiated a discussion on the Williams College student website, and received a varied response:
http://wso.williams.edu/discuss/comments.php? DiscussionID=1324&page=1#Item_0.
I urge you, as chancellor, to take necessary disciplinary actions so that students all over the country will understand that with free speech comes a lot of responsibility.
Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Sarah Lee
Nice. This is the most Orwellian formulation that I have seen from a Williams student this year. If you really believe that Karson is engaged in “free speech,” then, by definition there must be no official punishment by the state. That’s what free speech means. CU is a public university so there is no way that it can punish students for speech. Does Lee not understand this? She might as well demand that CU send Karson on a trip to Mars.
The chancellor’s statement makes that fairly clear, while kowtowing [Another racial slur! -- ed.] to prevailing sensibilities a bit too much for my taste.
All this matters because Lee is, I assume, a member with Stand With Us. Certainly, there will be many Ephs who think that the proposed Social Honor Code would ban speech like Karson’s. It can’t and it won’t. And the sooner someone takes the time to explain all this to Lee, the better. Again, the best way to make progress on this topic is to look at specific cases, both real and hypothetical.
There is a segment of the community of Ephs, including students, faculty and staff, which thinks that restricting free spech is possible and desirable. Censorship is neither. The sooner we settle on that, the more likely we are to accomplish something useful.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Certainly you can’t discipline someone for expressing a viewpoint on campus (although this article was clearly a pathetic, lame attempt to be humorous) but what I am curious about is why this dude was still on campus in the first place after a lot of the comments he made about the V.T. massacre … I’d be pretty nervous to have him around, especially if I was a minority on campus. (Read the Wikipedia entry on him). When you add in a long history of targetting minorities with his “humor”, this guy sounds like a troubled person who presents a legitimate threat to students, in particular minorities, on campus, which is a whole lot different than mere speech. Moreover, the student paper can publish whatever it wants, it is not obliged to publish anything, so why they chose this piece to publish is mystifying — not only offensive, but just flat out poorly-written, stupid, and not the least bit funny. Interesting that he is originally from Amherst, Mass …
February 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I’m astounded by the fact that youse guys are so easily offended by some moron. Be prepared to go through life pissed off on a daily basis - there are a lot of morons walking the streets in the real world - what an unproductive way for you to go!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Jeff–thanks for the suggestion to go to wikipedia. It sounds like Max Karson really needs some serious help with what sounds like a superiority complex.
David could have pointed out that the campus newspaper that published his crap is indeed undergoing significant changes (see the dean’s letter below the president’s letter).
or, David could have found this quote from the dean of the school, “I’m confident that the current crop of editors has begun to develop a new, more nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between absolute free speech and journalistic social responsibility. I also want to apologize on behalf of the school for the upset that our student publication has created.”
but those wouldn’t very much support his spin, would they?
I also call foul on your constant baiting of Stand With Us. As a group, are they in some way supposed to be responsible for the individual actions of its members during its member’s free time? Talk about orwellian requirements for a group…
February 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
There is nothing wrong with a student editor choosing to not publish something. If I were an editor, I would not have published it because it stank. The issue is that Lee wants the university itself to punish Karson. You agree? You think that this is a remotely defensible position, that an arm of the state can punish someone for his speech? Do tell!
I am “baiting” members of Stand With Us because, well, many of their members are doing baitable things. Besides Lee, we have the in-your-face marchers. How many examples do I need to produce before the individual actions of SwU members, during their “free time” (!?), add up to problems for the organization as a whole?
My “spin” is not really spin. I am making an empirical claim that many members of Stand With Us seek to restrict free speech. You disagree? You don’t think that someone like Lee wants the Williams administration to punish speech with which she disagrees? I will take the other side of that bet.
Let’s be specific. Mary Jane Hitler was not punished by Williams. I claim that many members of Stand With Us think that she should have, want the Social Honor Code to provide for such punishment. Do you disagree?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“…Lee is, I assume, a member with Stand With Us.”
Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t, but IMO, you shouldn’t have “assumed” and put that into print without checking first.
I find the fact that this guy has a Wikipedia entry is unfortunate. He may be proud of that ’standing’; that attention. And where does he go from here, to get more of it?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he shows up on EB to exercise his right to ‘free speech’.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I think “Orwellian” itself has now become an Orwellian term, such that using it achieves exactly the same effect of silencing argument that Orwell decried.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I hate to say it, but David is clearly right on this one. The letter is completely absurd and shows that the writer has a pretty warped understanding of “free” speech. Hurt feelings are simply not a legal reason for speech to be suppressed in this country (and, as David points out, CU is a public university). She is basically saying “I think freedom of speech is vitally important unless someone says something that makes me and others feel really bad, then they must be punished.” One hopes as she goes on at Williams she’ll understand how truly dangerous that sentiment is. I almost hope that a creationist at Williams starts to file complaints about how his or her biology profs constantly insult his or her religious beliefs and must be punished or stop teaching evolution. Then perhaps more of the students will understand why truly free speech is important.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Tacking on to Frank - Was this moron a “clear and present danger” (Schenck v US) or was he in that posited theater falsely yelling ‘fire’?
If not, he, however detestable, has a right to free speech. And the editors (and, indeed, this is why there are editors) have the choice of publication or not.
At least this moron has taken the responsibility of attaching his name to the screed. Our moron, ‘Justin Thyme’ in his misogynist rant hides under the white sheet of anonymity.
Surely, in a small college community some standard of behavior would call for taking responsibility for one’s actions.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Emotion are not reliable. They may be expressed upon the slightest provocation of a gesture, a motion, a word, whereby inner conflicts may surface at the trigger of a button, pushed, but unbeknownst to the purveyor and the receiver.
To argue is appropriate. To slander is not. It is the right to argue that is at the basis of these articulations. Before one begins to shape an argument one needs to reiterate from previous thread, on the subject of prejudices and how they define humanity. We are shades of expression in the widest possible sense. There are basic covenants or commandments upon which all humanity adheres to. Outside of these, we have real or imagined differences that set us apart and in common.
The historical, tribal and religious prejudices are most difficult to properly define, given the faith, beliefs, and cultural understandings between our myriad peoples. To create regulation and laws defining HATE without addressing these prejudices, differences, and perspectives, regarding how one perceive’s oneself internally, how one perceives himself or herself among our neighbors, and how one relates to the world or universe about them, is essential if we are to make an earnest effort to transform ourselves into more agreeable individuals.
Maintaining one’s position with regards the above paragraph as inviolable, one cannot but regret the continuation of our inherent predisposition for conflict. Conflict defines current social arrangements. We use conflict as a means of control over individuals, groups, and governments. Perhaps we have no real interest in conflict resolution, rather a diversion for increasing regulation as a means of control mechanisms for increasingly centralized control groups.
We utilize historical, tribal, and religious prejudices and differences to control, make war and plunder while we always moralize our actions, whether they are appeals in the name of an abstract God or some vague notions of Democracy.
What we have instead, however, in academic communities, are arguments on how to punish persons effectively for “breaking the rules”. They are attempting to use these arguments from these premises:
1. If we do no know who the perpetrator is, it is impossible to punish the person effectively.
2. Rules cannot be enforced without effective punishment.
3. Identity is necessary for the enforcement of rules.
4. Polities are defined by their rules.
5. There is in fact no rule, where a rule cannot be enforced.
6. Knowing identities is necessary for the very existence of rules.
7. Therefore, polities cannot exist unless identities of perpetrators are known.
The above arguments are very real. They are not about governance, but control. This is not about rules, but regulation. The new citizen is to be a shackled one. This is a false argument using the anarchy vs democracy appeal.
These people are clever swindlers who use philosophy as rhetorical disguise to enslave a non-discerning public.
This is rule by coercion. These are desperate attempts from a minority to thwart imaginary or perceived threats. Again, I reiterate the need to understand the basis or foundation for our thinking as we are different by way of history, tribe, religion and culture. We must approach our individual understandings before governing solutions can be addressed.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“There is a segment of the community of Ephs, including students, faculty and staff, which thinks that restricting free spech is possible and desirable.”
Don’t forget alums. See what ephblog’s own hwc (as “interesteddad’ on College Confidential) has to say to an interested Williams party who dares counter/inform hwc’s hostile and “spun” comments about Williams in a current thread [this week's performance begins after post #74 at http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/swarthmore/135705-warning-so-5.html ] (The post count now stands at 171.)
“treefarmer:
Again, this is a Swarthmore forum. (…) [ed. but with plenty of Williams bashing]
Just go away. Go back to the Williams forum and discuss whatever you want, there …”
hmmm
February 28th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’ll wait to respond to david’s other (wrong) points until after he replies to FM’s completely correct point.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Rory,
David seldom, if ever, responds to me. If he does this time, it will only be because you’ve asked.
Aparent:
Whoa…you know for a fact that is hwc?
Whomever it is, they seem to have it in for Williams… in a hateful way.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
As assumptions go, it’s a pretty safe one. Also, really eager to hear from Rory what David was wrong about.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Huh?
What point has FROSH mom made that needs to be responded to? She only wrote:
She asks no question of me, merely making a statement about what, in her opinion, I should have done. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with saying “I assume X is true” about anything. The problem comes when you assert that “X is true” when you aren’t sure that it is.
And, again, what sort of odds would any sensible person give me about this claim? (Of course, the exact membership of Stand With Us is not, I think, listed anywhere. So, by “member” I mean someone who has attended meetings and/or participate in marches and/or broadly supports the groups goals. If you want to use more precise terminology, then define some.
So, does Frosh MOM really believe that someone like Lee who takes the time to start WSO threads about racists articles at other institutions does not support the goals of Stand With Us? She really thinks that it is more likely that Lee would take the time to write to the chancellor of CU but does not bother to attend Stand With Us meetings? I find that absurd. I will happily offer 10:1 odds that I am correct in my assumption that Lee is a supporter. But, it is only an assumption, which is why I made that clear.
FM, if you want me to respond to something, you need to be more direct, you need to offer some sort of reasons for why what I said was wrong or unreasonable. As all can see, I do my best to respond to anyone who does that.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
fine, ben, since you ask and frosh mom correctly notes david often/most of the time skips her comments, I’ll be brief.
David defines his spin in the most friendly of terms, that he’s making an empirical claim. He is not doing so (tangent: claiming things are empirical does not negate their spin-worthiness. It is an empirical claim that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats on average. It’s still spin). He’s also spun said empirical claim from about whether or not Stand With Us members believe and want Williams to enact censorship policies that would have stopped Karson’s writing (his original claim) to the much more broad claim that they want to “restrict free speech”. That’s not a clear enough description…it would be easy to claim everyone wants to restrict free speech (can I enter your classroom and interrupt the professor repeatedly? Why not? You’re restricting my free speech! and other such examples). It is spin because that last claim is framed by his original post. tsk tsk.
This is not about MJ hitler, nor is this about Stand With Me. The individual views of the group are unimportant when the group itself has a specific separate goal. For example, if an individual member of the congressional black caucus believes the estate tax should be abolished, but the group itself has not made a stand, does that mean the group as a whole should be assumed to be against the estate tax? No. That in and of itself invalidates David’s claim. Perhaps is Lee were a leader of said group, it’d be a legitimate argument, but he provides no evidence of such.
Stand With Us is not engaged with any censorship efforts. Nor is it at a public university (like CU). David’s spin is to cast Stand With Us as a group with a mission to create a social honor code that will restrict free speech (and “PC buffoonry”). That is incorrect, as Will Slack’s most recent post makes abundantly clear. Most despicable, IMO, is that he does this while at the same time in other threads giving them BAD advice on how to achieve their mission.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
FM: Several months ago, an anonymous ephblogger called hwc out on that / hwc subsequently confirmed it; I think hwc at the time said many know of it. Last week here on ephblog LG independently made the connection as well. There have been other references to that here on EB from time to time.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Rory,
I confess that I do not see where we disagree. And, I don’t think Ben does either. So, let me repeat my claims:
Do you disagree with any of these claims? (You are free to argue that they are stupid and irrelevant and a waste of time to discuss. That’s fine. But I (and Ben) think that you are implying something else.)
Again, I make no claims about what Stand With Us wants as a group because, obviously, it has made no group statements. I am merely claiming what some individuals in Stand With Us want.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“wrong” as in should not be done, wrong as in framing the issue in a biased and unfair manner. My sentence might have been unclear because i was in a five minute break from a conference, sorry if it was. However, impugning the individuals in stand with us and focusing on their membership in stand with us (and not on the swimming team or KOW–the only group the individual MENTIONS in her letter–or any other group they are in. why aren’t you bashing KOW, a group that she is the leader of? I’ll posit an “empirical claim”: It’s because you disagree with Stand With Us and wanted to get a dig in at them, whereas you have no beef with KOW) is clearly designed to frame the group Stand With Us in a certain light. don’t back your way out of your views. be honest.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
David,
Wow. You certainly read a lot into my statement. Your entire paragraph about me (above in 14) has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.
And what I said was a query of sorts in that I felt you should have found out if Lee was a member of SWU before putting it into print.
The “assumption” wouldn’t have mattered so much if you hadn’t used it as a basis of your rant.
As far as giving reasons and being direct? I did exactly that. But honestly, if the above is the convoluted response I get to a simple statement about an unfair assumption, then, please, continue ‘not responding’ to me.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Well, look, there’s a reason that Sarah Lee’s membership in Stand With Us is more relevant than her participation in, say, the swim team. Look at the response that the CU Press article is generating out in Boulder, and tell me it doesn’t sound familiar.
Link here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/27/asian-hate-column-sparks-demonstration/
Plenty of people at Colorado seem want to make such speech difficult, if not impossible. Here’s a guy from the same article:
Given the e-mail Lee sent, is it unreasonable she feels the same way? David made another assumption in his post, that something like a majority of SWU members would agree with her, and I just don’t see it as that much of a leap. She’s not a random person off the street — she’s the head of a minority campus organization, which at the very least doesn’t make it less likely that her peers would share her views on something like this. Again, we’re making plenty of assumptions for the sake of having a discussion about on the topic, but I don’t see the inference as troubling.
The point being that I, too, have the sense that SWU is an organization that would like to create a social honor code that would limit free speech. I do. I’d be thrilled to be wrong about it, but in the meantime, I see some value in reminding people who might be leaning in the pro-censorship direction about what they’d be giving up. Again, maybe one runs the risk of impugning some people’s motives while doing so, but that’s a tradeoff of having the conversation in the first place. And not for nothing, but I really don’t see any side of the conversation as despicable.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
addNodeResource(”Someone Who Knows nothing about the job.);
February 29th, 2008 at 12:03 am
For the record:
I haven’t yet made one statement for or against SWU. I believe at one point I expressed some support to Will Slack for his sincerity in pursuing something he believed in.
And my comment re Lee stemmed from the same basic impetus; student advocacy; not wanting to see a student unfairly represented on EB.
Phew. Anyway… fascinating link that Ken has posted. Colorado seems to have some real controversy. Why, oh ,why would they hire a guy that the faculty voted 40-4 against? Fish comes up with a few good reasons, but not enough to justify the decision. What a terrible start to his presidency.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I agree with Ben. From the types of student “harrassment” cited by the administration in this week’s lead story of the Record, I fear that measured, reasonable discourse would be more likely to be stifled than not:
“According to an all-campus e-mail sent by Merrill yesterday morning, the investigation into the Williams Hall incident brought several other incidences of harassment to the administration’s attention, including the possible use of a racial slur at a party in Prospect on the evening of Feb. 1, the repeated defacement of a female first-year’s personal white board in, the Record has learned, Williams E, and the use of the word “nigger” in a conversation involving six students.”
I’m especially concerned with phraseology such as “the *possible* use of a racial slur at a party” and “the use of the word ‘nigger’ in a conversation involving six students.” Why doesn’t the college just revert to banning books, like in the old days of the Commonwealth?
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
(Update to post 10)
“There is a segment of the community of Ephs, including students, faculty and staff, which thinks that restricting free spech is possible and desirable.”
Don’t forget alums.
Update: hwc’s contributions to the free and easy exchange of ideas on CC include this gem from Saturday:
“My motivation is to make it so miserable for the Williams parents who have no reason to be participating in this thread that they go away.”
Once hwc revealed his true raison d’etre, CC’s “super moderator” closed the thread to additional comments (but without deleting hwc’s numerous encores before the fall of the final curtain). See his shameless command performance (the thread totaled more than 200 posts before being shut down [not a common occurrence] for “inappropriateness”) beginning after post 74 at the site in post 10. Highly recommended for a study of a master of chicanery at his finest (?).
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
To “interesteddad”:
Not wanting the Williams parents participating is one thing. All the ugly things said about the school and the students?
Very bad juju.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
(FM: Maybe you should address him as “hwc” here, “interesteddad” on CC.)
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 am
His anger seems to be escalating. I knew him slightly when we were much younger, and I’m worried for him.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 am
aparent: Don’t be surprised! Williams like most institutions has a long history of administrative chicanery - and in some cases is openly proud of its (at the very least arguably) dubious results.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Aparent:
I wasn’t questioning you. You don’t strike me as the type to make unfounded accusations. I guess it’s just hard for me to attribute such foul intent, without knowing for sure myself.
Of course, I can see, from the additional comments, that there is more here than meets the eye.