As FIRE puts it, “For the last couple of days, controversy has been buzzing about a YouTube video (now with more than 1.3 million views) from a college student at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who chose to take to the Internet to complain about the behavior of Asian students in the UCLA library and elsewhere. The student, who has been identified as Alexandra Wallace, claims that the ‘hordes’ of Asian students at UCLA (UCLA’s undergraduate population is about 37 percent Asian and Pacific Islander) cause various annoyances like loudly talking on their cell phones in the library and having their extended families come over and do their chores for them.”
FIRE goes on to criticize — in my view, quite rightly — some statements from UCLA administrators, including the seeming suggestion that the video could lead to disciplining the student, and the statement that “If she’s received a death threat, I find that as deplorable as her original YouTube video.” (Death threats are much more deplorable than making bigoted generalizations about your classmates.) The speech is clearly constitutionally protected, as well as being moronic.
I should note, just to anticipate one common response, that as with much idiocy not much would be lost to the First Amendment if this particular sort of statement, and only this sort of statement, somehow magically vanished. I watched the video, and it’s nonsense.
But the same rationale that would justify punishing a student for this video would equally justify punishing students who argue (on video, in newspaper articles, or what have you) many other things. If the theory is that the speech can be restricted because it somehow creates a “hostile educational environment” for a particular group, the same could be said of statements that — just to give a few examples — (1) immigration from some countries should be cut off because immigrants from those countries disproportionately have certain bad traits, (2) there are sex or race differences in intelligence or temperament, (3) homosexuality and those who engage in it are immoral, (4) fundamentalist Christianity / Catholicism / Scientology / atheism is an evil belief system, and that those who adhere it are either evil or stupid, (5) that American Jews are morally complicit in Israel’s supposed crimes, and a vast range of other speech.
The premise of the American university (and, I think, American self-government more broadly) is that people need to be free to express their views, whether the administrators and others see those views as morally right or morally wrong, so that social and political decisions can be reached based on actual discussion, and not mere force — and so that we can be confident that the things we believe are wrong are indeed wrong, rather than just that they have become unquestioned orthodoxy because challenging them can get you expelled. And to implement that premise, boneheaded statements have to be as protected as more well-reasoned statements.
UPDATE: Here’s FIRE’s letter to UCLA about the matter.
OrenWithAnE says:
Isn’t there a distinction between student speech that happens in the university (say, in the library or in the dorms) and speech wholly outside it?
At least as I see it intuitively, the university can rightly prohibit some things in a dorm room that they could not prohibit of a student if she said them off-campus and away from any university event.
March 15, 2011, 5:29 pmAJK says:
While it appears that no formal disciplinary proceedings have begun, the student in question seems to have been turned into a social pariah, in part because of the condemnation she has faced from school administrators acting in their official capacities. Can you comment on how the First Amendment does/should regulate that kind of activity?
March 15, 2011, 5:30 pmptt says:
There’s plenty of “boneheadedness” going around, it seems, including at FIRE. Of course, it’s all protected free spin.
As for her career possibilities, I have little doubt some doors are now opening while others are closing.
March 15, 2011, 5:40 pmCornellian says:
Any relation to George Wallace?
March 15, 2011, 5:40 pmRichard says:
The late (and great) Gerald Gunther, professor of constitutional law at Stanford, strongly opposed university hate speech codes. He wrote, in part:
I am deeply troubled by current efforts—however well-intentioned— to place new limits on freedom of expression at this and other campuses. Such limits are not only incompatible with the mission and meaning of a university; they also send exactly the wrong message from academia to society as a whole. University campuses should exhibit greater, not less freedom of expression than prevails in society at large. . . .
The proper answer to bad speech is usually more and better speech—not new laws, litigation, and repression. . . .
March 15, 2011, 5:45 pmptt says:
What makes this video stand out and what is probably responsible for the outrage is her references to the calamity in Japan.
March 15, 2011, 5:46 pmStephen Lathrop says:
I have been advocating on other threads for some kind of protection for personal privacy in the context of the internet. This affords a good opportunity to underline a distinction that seems to have escaped some who replied. The speech in this case is threatened with censorship, despite that it falls squarely (however foolishly) in the realm of public interest. It should of course be protected.
March 15, 2011, 5:53 pmgoodreverend says:
AJK: the school retains its own First Amendment rights to criticize, condemn, and disassociate itself from the speech of its students. That the school is in a position to draw attention to its own statements can’t and shouldn’t deprive it of the ability to attempt damage to its reputation.
March 15, 2011, 5:57 pmSarcastro's Little Brother says:
This is why we have tenure: so that employees can openly criticize the hand that feeds them!
[Sarcasm aside, Eugene's point is spot on. Even obnoxious idiots like Alexandra Wallace have First Amendment rights.]
March 15, 2011, 6:02 pmMike P. says:
I don’t think a public university can prohibit speech in a dorm room or anywhere else, unless of course the person is yelling to keep people awake, or some other non-content-related issue.
March 15, 2011, 6:03 pmGiant Frog says:
(Death threats are much more deplorable than making bigoted generalizations about your classmates.)
Quite so. Wallace sounds like the most disgusting, hypocritical type of PC dweeb imaginable. And the girl’s comments weren’t “bigoted”, they were just rude, and this reaction is ludicrous:
The chancellor of her university has condemned her in the strongest terms. At this point, she is undoubtedly something of a social pariah, and she seems to have gone “off the grid” at UCLA. You have to imagine that this will affect her career prospects. And all of this has happened without any official punishment—so far, anyway.
Sanctimonious sharks on a feeding frenzy.
March 15, 2011, 6:11 pmluxurytwist says:
On a tangential topic, I think it’s far too easy for people in positions like Ms. Wallace’s to deflect criticism by claiming to have received death threats — the message being that if you continue to criticize their behavior, you’re somehow contributing to the danger of violence against them. It’s a defensive smokescreen, and I suspect that 90 percent of the time, it’s bogus (not just that the threats aren’t serious, but that they occurred at all).
Random death threats are almost always unserious, of course. What percent of people who claim victimization this way end up getting killed? Let’s face it, on the internet, if you’ve never received a death threat you must not be saying anything interesting. I say this as someone whose life has been threatened anonymously because of my controversial view on Yoda.
March 15, 2011, 6:15 pmGasman says:
I was disappointed to discover that the video never showed any misbehaving hoards.
March 15, 2011, 6:15 pmluxurytwist says:
This is not to defend making such threats, of course. I just think publicizing them is usually a cynical ploy.
March 15, 2011, 6:17 pmptt says:
My, what a “helpful” letter FIRE sent.
March 15, 2011, 6:22 pmMusing Justice says:
ptt -
What was so unhelpful about the letter? Made perfect sense to me. The only criticism I could have it is they could have shortened it to “Nothing to see here, move along.”
March 15, 2011, 6:31 pmptt says:
You left out that last bit.
I rarely find threatening letters copying the entire top tier of a public institution “helpful”. Of course, I’m a California taxpayer and, as such, am paying for the reams of legal responses this letter will generate.
March 15, 2011, 6:39 pmLarryWB says:
One of the things that bothers me about this whole episode is how typical it is of modern sensibilities. Everybody, everywhere, at all times seems to be just itching for a chance to be outraged. And when, inevitably, they find one, they go crazy – even when the behavior or speech or event that outrages them is inherently meaningless.
When you get down to it, who actually cares what some twit at UCLA (or anywhere else) says in a video on YouTube, for pete’s sake! Are we really that frail? If so, we have a problem far more serious that a little rant by some college woman. What’s more, we have given her and other people like her far too much power!
March 15, 2011, 6:40 pmruuffles says:
Unfortunately the same is not true for high schools. The 3rd Circuit is hearing an en banc case to resolve two conflicting panel decisions, one holding that students can’t be punished for what they say outside of school and one holding that they can.
March 15, 2011, 6:41 pmMusing Justice says:
ptt -
If you were the least bit familiar with FIRE’s work you would probably know most responses they get are from administrators, not lawyers, and are short, maybe 1-2 pages.
The “I am the poor taxpayer who is going to have to foot the bill” red herring really doesn’t work well here.
March 15, 2011, 6:43 pmluxurytwist says:
Whatever happened to that woman at Harvard whose “friend” released her email? Anything bad? It seems like a similar hoo-ha.
March 15, 2011, 6:52 pmptt says:
I am more than “the least bit” familiar with FIRE, “the least bit” being a pretty low bar. I’m also familiar, for other reasons, with the responses generated by bureaucracies. Where did I say they’ll get responses “from lawyers”? Are you suggesting the responses FIRE does get will not be seen by lawyers before they are mailed?
“Reams” was — to use the word of the day — perhaps “boneheaded” of me, but let’s not go the other direction and pretend the Chancellor will just dash off a memo in five minutes.
March 15, 2011, 6:52 pmnot a hacker says:
I find Wallace’s comments interesting on an empirical level. I’d assume the library atmosphere at UCLA is more or less like that at Berkeley. Having spent much time in Cal’s main library in recent years, I’m struck by how seldom Asian students offend, either with cell phone or person-to-person talk. And what talk I do hear is in English. One trend I think I’ve noticed is that unserious students don’t go to the library at all. What I can say with certainty is that library administrators seem to have no interest whatsoever in policing noise. They really have to be pushed, and they pout about having to get involved.
March 15, 2011, 6:54 pmMusing Justice says:
ptt-
This is the extent of what is going to happen:
(P = President, GC = General Counsel)
(P rings GC)
P: We just got a letter from FIRE concerning this Asian video thing. They say we can’t investigate. Is FIRE right?
GC: Yup. They almost always are.
P: OK I will have my secretary draw up a one page letter with some flowery language about freedom of speech, thanking them for their concerns, and telling them there is no investigation.
GC: Sounds good. Want to play golf tomorrow and charge it to the taxpayer?
P: Sure. See you then.
March 15, 2011, 7:03 pmCrazyTrain says:
Glad she made that clear.
March 15, 2011, 7:05 pmgab says:
Cornellian won the thread early on.
March 15, 2011, 7:08 pmCrazyTrain says:
I would just note that I strongly disagree with this statement. Idiotic statements do add a lot to our discourse by exposing the idiocy behind them and allowing others to respond to them explaining their idiocy.
March 15, 2011, 7:08 pmptt says:
If that’s what you think will happen, would you say the letter was “helpful”?
Different strokes, I guess.
March 15, 2011, 7:14 pmMusing Justice says:
ptt-
Yes it would be extremely helpful from the perspective of the person receiving death threats and being told you might get kicked out of school because you posted a “boneheaded” video on the internet. At least then all they have to be worried about is being hunted down by a mob looking to extract social justice.
March 15, 2011, 7:25 pmptt says:
Musing-
A letter which, by your account, conveys something that is already known to people who already know it and will, by your account, result in a meaningless bit of correspondence and a golf game is, at the same time, “extremely helpful”.
OK. Really not worth arguing over. Time for the dog park.
March 15, 2011, 7:44 pmpublic_defender says:
I love the First Amendment.
Ms. Wallace gets to show the world that she’s a racist. Plus, she gets to prove she’s an idiot because she thinks it’s something she should bragging about. Them the rest of us get to say that she’s a racist and an idiot.
I love the First Amendment.
March 15, 2011, 8:00 pmdearieme says:
Is it racist to opine that (say) Asians are disproportionately prone to chatter on their phones in a library if (i) it happens to be true, or (ii) only if it happens to be untrue?
I need to know because a librarian friend of mine once told me that she was fed up with the slovenly habits of American students, particularly their putting their feet up on chairs, and I’m keen to know whether she is a racist.
March 15, 2011, 8:22 pmFormer Weyburn Tenant says:
I’ve wondered if UCLA’s prohibition that “no signs or placards be displayed in windows or on walls” (page 7, #15 of this PDF) of University Apartment Housing violates the First Amendment. Any thoughts?
March 15, 2011, 8:46 pmByung Kyu Park says:
In college?
In high school, yes, but in college, these are adults with full constitutional rights. I don’t see how public universities have the power to abridge free speech rights, under any grounds—other than the reasonable time-and-place restriction as specified by SCOTUS.
March 15, 2011, 8:50 pmMDT says:
I hope she realizes that stuff she posts on YouTube is basically permanent. Because that clip is never going to go away.
Plus, she’s just set herself up for a massive round of dumb blonde jokes.
March 15, 2011, 8:58 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Except that SCOTUS allows landlords and libraries to impose more significant restrictions than the government at large.
March 15, 2011, 9:00 pmMG says:
The Chancellor sent an e-mail to the ENTIRE student body condemning the video and how “appalled” he was. Where was the e-mail from the Chancellor saying how appalled he was the last time a UCLA student got a DUI? The last time a UCLA student raped someone? The last time a UCLA student committed any sort of felony or violent act?
I am in no way defending or condoning the moronic video. But by choosing to condemn this action and none of the others mentioned above, the Chancellor is implicitly stating that this action is more egregious, which I do not believe any rational person could possibly believe. Singling out this video discounts the significance of all the other actual crimes committed. Furthermore, sending the response to every single student, the vast majority of which were probably unaware of the video at the time it was sent, only raised awareness and fanned the flames of hatred.
Most importantly, this student received actual death threats – why has the Chancellor himself not issued a statement condemning those? Again, his silence only implies that threatening to kill someone is not as serious an offense as posting a dumb video to the Internet.
March 15, 2011, 9:03 pmGrover Gardner says:
Is saying you don’t like the French “racist”?
March 15, 2011, 9:03 pmByung Kyu Park says:
So, if YouTube didn’t want her video to stay up, they would be in their rights to remove the video. UCLA has no say whatsoever on what is posted on YouTube—nor is it in their power to discipline the student, provided the production of video itself was not in violation of any rules (I haven’t seen the video to know where it was produced; was the background dorm room?).
March 15, 2011, 9:08 pmKanchou says:
Speaking for myself, policing the stacks over noises, people fighting over table spaces, or increasingly popular of electrical outlets wasn’t exactly why people sign up for library school. We are not exactly paid well enough for such confrontations. Campus police is better equipped to handle such issues. i.e.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E
March 15, 2011, 9:09 pmpetetheelder says:
As a side note the girl is also an idiot since she thinks Americans don’t talk on their cell phones in the library.
It depends on the administrator and the library system. Some are all for it and willing to put up with headaches that come with it and when I worked behind a reference desk I was quick to kick people out for disruptive behavior or call security on repeat offenders. But you have to have decent policies in place and be willing to spend money on competent security and potentially lawyers to enforce them when needed. It can be very difficult to get people kicked out of public libraries on a long term basis, even when you have documented repeat abusive behavior.
March 15, 2011, 10:00 pmDebrah says:
Excellent.
Just wanted to post it again.
March 15, 2011, 10:32 pmMDT says:
The thing that struck me most (apart from “This girl got into UCLA? Seriously?”) was that she acknowledged that maybe her classmates were worried about their relatives after the earthquake and the tsunami, but, seriously, if you’re waiting for news from home, get out of the library because I’m trying to study here.
A more self-absorbed, um, piece of work I’ve never seen.
March 15, 2011, 10:37 pmMalvolio says:
One of the best things about free speech is how it makes it easy to spot the idiots. There’s one now…
March 15, 2011, 11:17 pmleo marvin says:
Does “PC” have another meaning I’m not aware of?
March 15, 2011, 11:20 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Not to mention confused. AFAIK, only dialects of Chinese sounds remotely similar to “ching chong”. I don’t speak Japanese, but I’ve heard it enough to know it sounds relatively similar to Korean.
Ever watch Mac and PC commercials? Wallace is the dweeb that stands in as a PC, not the hip guy that stands in as a Mac.
In seriousness, PC, in political contexts, stands for “politically correct”.
March 15, 2011, 11:55 pmShelbyC says:
Then the next question is, when did making fun of Asians become politically correct?
March 16, 2011, 12:15 amleo marvin says:
that
March 16, 2011, 12:26 amByung Kyu Park says:
Oh, wait.
I think I misread—and I imagine Giant Frog did too, or he would have said “she”, rather than “the girl”—while I was quickly checking where “Wallace” was mentioned in the post.
But really, making fun of Asians shouldn’t only be politically correct, it should be politically required. Those people are seriously rude. Some of the rudest people I’ve known in college were Asians. I don’t know how many times I pushed down the urge to yell “ASIANES EUNT DOMUS!”
March 16, 2011, 12:31 amOrenWithAnE says:
It certainly appears to be a dorm room.
March 16, 2011, 12:34 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
I just watched it. She must like negative attention.
Eugene is right, as I see it, that she shouldn’t be disciplined for what she said. I hope that she doesn’t turn into a free speech martyr.
As someone who did his graduate work in the political science department at UCLA and taught there for two years, to quote what my Constitutional Law professor Frank Goodman said in our class more than twenty years ago, “I cannot believe that anyone who attends this institution would say such a thing.”
And she didn’t limit her comments to what allegedly occurs at the library.
And since when do “Americans” (evidently, Asian students don’t qualify) have good manners?
March 16, 2011, 12:40 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
This is my attempt at comic relief… Do think that while she is studying her “political science arguments and ideas” –damn, why couldn’t she have said history or sociology!!!– she would have an “epiphany” if, in fact, she hadn’t been so rudely interrupted? I’m skeptical…
March 16, 2011, 12:52 amByung Kyu Park says:
What really bothers me about some of these Asian students (Asian American students don’t bother me; Asian students do) is how they refuse to integrate.
“When in Rome, do as Romans do.”
They are in America. If they speak their funny talk, rather than American, they deserve all the ridicule and scorn they get.
I mean, it’s one thing if they simply aren’t able to learn English (e.g. first generation immigrants; for many of them, there simply isn’t the time or the will to learn beyond what is barely necessary to get by or to pass naturalization test), but if they got accepted to an American university, clearly it’s not that they can’t speak English. So, why aren’t they speaking in English in public?
March 16, 2011, 12:55 amShelbyC says:
Well, I just watched the entire video, and I didn’t notice anything offensive at all.
Of course, I wasn’t listening…
March 16, 2011, 1:04 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
Obviously, if you speak English in public, you cannot talk about the “Americans” who are sitting near you…
Haven’t you seen that Seinfeld episode?
March 16, 2011, 1:06 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
Shelby, were you distracted by anything?
March 16, 2011, 1:07 amByung Kyu Park says:
‘Can’t say I have. I’m sorry. I’m a bad American.
March 16, 2011, 1:41 amNickM says:
Cornellian was good, but this is the real threadwinner.
Nick
March 16, 2011, 1:47 amByung Kyu Park says:
I finally watched the video. I think she lives off-campus (which wouldn’t be surprising; at least at UC Berkeley, there isn’t enough on-campus housing for beyond the freshmen, and I would imagine it’s not that different at UCLA). She refers to her place as “apartment complex” and she talks about people cooking for students—wouldn’t happen in a dorm, where there are dining halls and where cooking facilities are meager.
Oh, and I agree with people saying that she said nothing offensive. She didn’t say anything like “these Asians at library need to concentrate; maybe they should go to a camp for that”. “Ching chong” is what comes closest, but if you are seriously offended by that, you’ve been living in a cave.
March 16, 2011, 2:09 amClarence R says:
Perhaps the UCLA administration should examine the promotion of antisemitism at a campus sponsored event:
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6835
“A “Gaza and Human Rights” symposium hosted by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)’s Center for Near Eastern Studies instructed attendees on how best to spread anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism.
Attendees advocated for many unrelated leftists, from Lenin to Che Guevara, while students were busy texting, Twittering, and checking Facebook.
Moderator Susan Slyomovics, the director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies, offered typical leftist academic condescension.
“I have done extensive research on Israel and Palestine. After all, this is not Fox TV. This is UCLA.”
She must have meant the Fox News Channel, unless she was comparing her research abilities to Homer Simpson.
UCLA history professor Gabriel Piterberg followed. He described an “Israeli onslaught on Gaza Palestinians” and labeled IDF soldiers “war criminals.”
He alleged the “forced removal of the indigenous people in favor of the settler nation-state,” with Palestinians supposedly being the former and Israelis the latter.
He cited Karl Marx, referencing popular revolts in China and India and the Algerian struggle against France as examples of the proletariat overthrowing oppressors. Palestinians would rise up next, he predicted.
He repeated the debunked charge that Israel has killed Gazans using white phosphorous.”
March 16, 2011, 3:01 amBrian Macker says:
They are only bigoted generalizations if the assumption is made that because an individual is a member of a group they are guilty of behaving in a particular mannner. Observing that a particular group is acting in a certain way disproportionately from other groups is not bigoted.
When I was in college we did not have PCs or laptops and had wait on line to use terminals and punch machines. I never saw non-Asians doing what I saw Asians do almost every single time I was there. That was walking up to someone using a terminal and then switching places. Then they would repeat again. If an Asian sat down a particular terminal in the morning and you were there before your first class, then if you came back late in the day you can be sure that some other different Asian would still be using the same terminal. We called these “Asians only” terminals.
There was an obvious flow of Asians in and out of the terminal room bypassing the line.
This was a way of gaming the system to their advantage. They didn’t have to wait on line. This was not the only means they used to game the system. Those Asians I saw doing that were cheats. Those who didn’t weren’t cheats. There were a hell of a lot of Asian cheats.
Perhaps in their culture they just felt this was a smart way of behaving. The rest of us did not appreciate it.
March 16, 2011, 7:22 amBrian Macker says:
Well that was clearly racist Frank. Way to defend her.
[EV: I deleted Frank Drackman's comments, and banned him.]
March 16, 2011, 8:16 amalkali says:
Forgotten your transgressions we have not. Revenge dish best cold served is.
March 16, 2011, 9:45 amSayWhat? says:
Eugene:
What is the difference between what the UCLA administrators are doing here, and when your very own blog selectively bans posts of commenters when you, or your fellow conspirators, simply don’t care for the sentiments being expressed by others. (not vulgar, not threatening, just not in lockstep with your own blog views?)
You preach a good game, but when you continue with the selective “dinner party deletion” and selective exclusion of comments on your own allegedly open blog… well, let’s just say, it’s easy to talk the talk, professor, but clearly you couldn’t walk a city block on the convictions you express above.
Thanks for posting (this time anyway.) Look forward to sitting in the “comment moderation” or deletion hold once you realize I’m not patting your back here.
March 16, 2011, 10:09 amSayWhat? says:
“The premise of the American university (and, I think, American self-government more broadly) is that people need to be free to express their views, whether the administrators and others see those views as morally right or morally wrong, so that social and political decisions can be reached based on actual discussion, and not mere force — and so that we can be confident that the things we believe are wrong are indeed wrong, rather than just that they have become unquestioned orthodoxy because challenging them can get you expelled. And to implement that premise, boneheaded statements have to be as protected as more well-reasoned statements.”
Except when you offend “polite” dinner party conversation, as per our selectively enforced comments policy… Heh.
March 16, 2011, 10:11 amAdam says:
The UCLA Library Conduct Policy on cell phones states that “[c]ell phones and pagers must be turned off while in classes, libraries, or other quiet areas” and that violators might be subject to sanctions under Section 102.13 of the UCLA Student Conduct Code regarding disruptions. (http://www.library.ucla.edu/about/6162.cfm)
March 16, 2011, 10:32 amAJK says:
Even though many of its contributors are government employees, the Volokh Conspiracy isn’t run by the government.
March 16, 2011, 10:43 amAJK says:
Just out of curiosity:
People seem to be saying that the “ching chong” thing was racist. If you think that, is it equally racist to imitate other languages with nonsense syllables (as in that scene in the Court Jester)? What about speaking in an exaggerated foreign accent: racist for some, all or no languages?
March 16, 2011, 10:46 amwhit says:
the volokh conpiaracy is NOT eht
iow, the volokh conspiracy is NOT the govt… although they are here to help
March 16, 2011, 10:47 amSayWhat? says:
“Even though many of its contributors are government employees, the Volokh Conspiracy isn’t run by the government.”
No duh. Now take a few steps further, with me, if you will…
The principles Eugene expresses above — “free speech for bone-headed comments too advances the discussion” — what’s the difference between that principle on a dinner-party-deleting blog, and what he’s criticizing UCLA for doing?
(Take your time before assuming others are as ignorant as you suspect them to be. The point indeed stands.)
March 16, 2011, 11:05 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
Don’t let it happen again :) Elaine suspects that the Koreans who do her nails at the nail shop are talking about her in Korean and she enlists the help of George’s father (Jerry Stiller), who speaks Korean, to find out whether they are talking about her. As it turns out, they are, and of course, there’s a twist…
March 16, 2011, 11:07 amSayWhat? says:
“oh yeah, my ancestors killed Jesus…
which I never really understood when people would call me a “Christ Killer””
Boy, the Jews just love to hang on to that one. Seems that’s the only group I know of, that continues to believe that Christians don’t know Romans put Christ to death.
Talk about a martyr stereotype. And not understanding your (alleged) “enemies”. But have at it: seems to be all you’ve got, eh?
March 16, 2011, 11:07 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
Have I heard worst things? Yes, but that’s not the point, is it?
March 16, 2011, 11:12 amSayWhat? says:
One other thing:
All those who have to prove to everyone else on the planet how silly they are for believing in the New Testament… how come so many are so quiet when it comes to pointing out the Original Covenant version, with all the promises and blessings it too entails, isn’t just Storytime, Storytime as well?
Nevermind consistency’s sake, why do you suppose the good atheists are so convinced (and thus need to convince all others) that their beliefs built on faith are frauds, yet that OT story being scoffed at and challenged brings nothing but respectful silence?
Maybe something to do with respecting elders, and the foundations of Law?
***crickets***
(Get past the Christ-killer easy rhetoric and ‘splain that one to me some day?)
Personally, I liked it better when the world was bigger, we had less contact with others, and respect was respectfully maintained, and you did your giggling and martyring in private. Seems the world worked better together then too. “Not for me, but what do I care what doeth ye?” (So long as you’re nobody gets spat upon or hurt, that is.)
March 16, 2011, 11:13 amgooners says:
The sight of well-educated, well-off University administrators publicly condemning one of their students really bothers me. Their job is create an environment for students to explore – and sometimes to fail in new and spectacular ways. The public shaming of this girl is bad enough without the university joining in. Just a nasty reaction all around.
March 16, 2011, 11:14 amCJColucci says:
Would the First Amendment really prohibit an even-handed, viewpoint-neutral policy that, on campus or at college functions, men should act like what used to be called gentlemen and women should act like what used to be called ladies? Is an educational institution really disabled from requiring a higher standard of behavior from its students than accepting anything, no matter how asshole-ish, that is not likely to cause disruption?
March 16, 2011, 11:14 amUrso says:
And speaking for myself, nursemaiding often petulant or unrealistic clients and dealing with unprepared or unprofessional opposing counsel wasn’t exactly why I signed up for law school. Alas….
March 16, 2011, 12:11 pmJudge Fredd says:
Unless it is reheated in the microwave of Evil…
March 16, 2011, 12:25 pmAJK says:
Supporting open discussion doesn’t require private citizens to open their property to you to spout off about whatever you want, whenever you want, at any time. I don’t wan to put words in Professor V.’s mouth, but I feel supremely confident that he would have no objections to your commenting to your heart’s content on VC posts on your own website. (Note also that your subsequent posts have in fact appeared in this thread, in spite of manifestly not adding to the discussion.)
March 16, 2011, 1:23 pmYou Can Defend Alexandra Wallace’s Right to Free Speech Without Defending the Speech Itself « Student Activism says:
[...] be “hateful” or “offensive.” Law professor Eugene Volokh goes even further, defending Wallace’s free speech rights even as he characterizes the video as “bigoted” [...]
March 16, 2011, 1:43 pmKanchou says:
That’s true. But do you “pout” when you face those situations? I wouldn’t say I “pout” when I have to get involved, more like “groan.” Between de-institutionalization, various civil right law/rulings, American with Disability Acts, etc. are really discouraging, especially if library staff is already understaffed and without adequate support.
http://pla.org/ala/mgrps/divs/pla/plapublications/publiclibraries/PL_48n2_Torrey_etal.pdf
Even a routine request for student ID for enterance at night can escalate very quickly, with rule violator claiming “Bipolar Disorder,” as excuse and discrimination under ADA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_Taser_incident
Regardless
Like another stated:
Way too many Library boards/governing bodies are reluctant to spend enough on those front to make library staff feel they can safety do their job. Especially in non-unionized environment, some of them found it’s easier to blame the library staff, apologize than fight it out in court.(I had a peer being ordered to take “sensitivity training” for enforcing the rule on “wrong people.”)
See also:
http://volokh.com/2011/03/10/60000-award-later-reversed-based-on-pre-movie-announcement-asking-audience-to-turn-off-cell-phones-and-not-talk-allegedly-made-because-audience-was-mostly-black/
Librarians are professionals. They should do their jobs and enforce the rule when warranted. But please cut them some slacks if they appears to “pout” as they fortify themselves for the confrontations.
March 16, 2011, 2:08 pmRoger says:
The student video is funny. It is no more offensive than rants commonly broadcast on the Comedy Channel. She has provoked a useful public discussion. The response videos are no less offensive than the original. The UCLA administration response is the most offensive of all.
March 16, 2011, 5:30 pmNickM says:
So much for the Stanford Band.
Nick
March 16, 2011, 9:32 pmCockleCove says:
When sent away from the dinner table, my son waxed indignant that his dad & I had violated his First Amendment rights. His mixing of apples & oranges, however, was understandable; he was 7 years old.
March 16, 2011, 9:45 pmliamascorcaigh says:
“Oh, wait.. I don’t know how many times I pushed down the urge to yell “ASIANES EUNT DOMUS!”
March 17, 2011, 1:07 pm“Asiani, ite domum”, surely.
Byung Kyu Park says:
My bad.
I’ll write it out 100 times as punishment.
March 17, 2011, 1:40 pmEugene Volokh on UCLA Video: Moronic, but Protected - FIRE says:
[...] Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law professor and noted First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the "Asians in the Library" YouTube video recently posted [...]
March 17, 2011, 4:38 pmDan Weber says:
The New York Times cites you approvingly. Editorial
March 18, 2011, 11:41 amTom Wilde says:
Now history has provided us with an instructive lesson:
Case One:
UCLA threatened to punish a student for exercising free speech by means of the University’s Student Code of Conduct (parts of which may chill, if not threaten, free speech) and UCLA’s move was taken up in major dailies around the nation, and then found itself on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times.
Case Two:
UCLA threatened to punish a former UCLA student for exercising free speech by means of civil and criminal penalties in court and UCLA’s move was not taken up in any of our major dailies, and it didn’t find itself as even a matter of interest to UCLA’s own campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin (which simply remained silent on this news as it was breaking, and thereafter).
Lesson: UCLA’s threatening punishment and free speech through its Student Code of Conduct is news that’s fit to print. UCLA’s threatening civil and criminal punishment and free speech through the court of law is not news that’s fit to print.
March 18, 2011, 11:22 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Was this “free speech” libelous or did it perhaps violate some intellectual property (e.g. violating NDA, violating copyright, etc.)?
Usually universities don’t sic the dogs on anyone for mere speech …
March 19, 2011, 12:06 amAdam says:
Tom Wilde’s case also was taken up by us at FIRE (“Attempt to Stop Critical Website from Using Letters ‘UCLA’”) successfully: http://thefire.org/case/802.html
March 19, 2011, 9:02 pmThis Week in the News: UCLA Launches, Ends Harassment Investigation of 'Asians in the Library' YouTube Video - FIRE says:
[...] School of Law professor and noted First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, who concluded that Wallace's speech is "clearly constitutionally protected" (as well as [...]
March 21, 2011, 1:44 pm