IP: a reaction to UPenn Provost's Statement on the

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Please note I am sending this out NOT to criticize our Provost or UPenn but
to let you read an elegant note on the reason for fighting to protect the 1
st Amendment.


Dave


From: pal () caster ssw upenn edu (Paul Lukasiak)
Newsgroups: upenn.talk,upenn.chat,upenn.talk.politics


Kevin M. Greenberg (kgreenbe () dolphin upenn edu) wrote:
: Just because our provost has made that statement now does NOT mean that 
: the position could not change if the feds came after a Penn person.  


First Amendment rights, free expression, and academic freedom should not
be a crap shoot.  No one at this University should feel that *maybe* the
university actually stands behind free expression, it should be a given.
Stop and think about what factors would influence the University to change
its mind.  The content of the "offending material"?  The size of the bank
account of the student's parents?  The weather?


: You are definitely not giving Chodorow enough credit.  It was a classic 
: statement of non-support.  Sorta like the job reference that an employee 
: was prompt and well-dressed.  Says nothing about their abilities and by 
: not supporting, you clearly show non-support -- without openly stating 
: that you dislike/oppose/disapprove (stuff that lands you in lawsuits in 
: the employee example or with reductions in federal funds in Penn's).  


I think I gave the Provost appropriate credit for what he did. 
This isn't a job application.  It's free expression.  


: I was talking with someone (faculty) at Princeton last night and was told 
: that Princeton has not published/said anything on this issue and that 
: this faculty member thought the statement was both appropriate and the 
: perfect balancing -- by being as negative as possible without openly 
: disagreeing.  Someone should pat the provost on the back, not stab him there.


The provost had four choices, 1) tell students that Penn found the law to
be abhorrent, and assure the students of University support if the
government decided to violate their First Amendment rights #2) do nothing
#3) tell students that they cannot depend on the University to defend
their First Amendment rights  #4) actively censor the content of Pennet.


It saddens me to realize that this University hasn't got the courage, or
the commitment to free speech, that would make option #1 the obvious choice.
It is depressing to realize that doing nothing is the *best* that we could
have expected.  (There is a quote that goes something like "all that is
required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing", and I really
wish I could remember what it was.)  


It is frightening to realize that you seem to be giving credit to the
provost simply because he did not choose option #4.  


But what the provost did was nearly as bad.  Censorship does not require
examination of each and every word written or picture posted to be
effective.  All that it requires is the *threat* that *your* words, or
*your* pictures, will be subjected to that scrutiny.   The right to free
speech should not be available only to those courageous or foolhardy
enough to risk their physical freedom or their bank accounts.


In his address to the incoming freshmen this year, the Provost focussed on
the idea of "civil discourse".  Essentially, the Provost encouraged
a form of self-censorship, based on an individual's judgement of what
is appropriate and useful.  This is fine, and admirable, and would lead
to more productive dialogue.  (and I will be the first one to admit that I
should practice it more often.)


In his statement on the CDA, what the provost did was encourage an entirely
different form of self-censorship, based not on the individual's judgement
of what is appropriate, but on his/her judgement of what is permissable.  
This is *not* fine, it is *not* admirable, and it would lead to the end of
intellectual freedom.