January 27, 2004
UCLA: Stop Free Speech
I went over to SpeechCodes.org and looked up my undergraduate school, UCLA. Apparently UCLA has several policies that substantially restrict freedom of speech.
Here are some snippets from the policies.
Sexual orientation discrimination in the classroom may involve the professor making comments or actions or allow unchallenged comments or actions by students that single out or ignore lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or people. This kind of often inadvertent behavior may discourage LGBT students from feeling safe in the classroom or reaching their full academic potential.--emphasis added
Ignore? So if in discussing some issue, specific reference is not made to people fit the LGBT label, but reference is made to a similar heterosexual group (say a married couple) this is a violation?
Here is another snippet.
refusal to allow LGBT issues or people to be discussed;
What exactly does this mean? It is rather vague to me. What if the LGBT issues are totally irrelevant to the class topic? Would shutting down a discussion on LGBT issues say during a class on differential equations be in violation?
Now admittedly my complaints about the parts of the policy above are a bit silly. I doubt an instructor teaching a statistics course who nevers mentions LGBT issues will get into trouble for such a failure. But this next bit is a bit more disconcerting,
continuous use of heterosexist terms such as making the assumption that all people are heterosexual. Such assumptions evoke images in students' minds and effectively eliminate LGBT people as subjects of discourse even though the elimination may be unintentional, but it nonetheless renders LGBT people peripheral or invisible.
These two sentences combined with other aspects of the policy indeed tell the individual exactly how not to talk. You have to at least occasionally pepper your verbal exchanges with positive references to people who fit the into the LGBT label (yes I'm using the word label on purpose because that is what it is...a label, classification, description, etc.). How come there are no such requirements for heterosexuals? Do people in the LGBT catagory never use derogatory terms to refer to them? Further, if an individual doesn't have a positive view of such people how come this individual now has to make positive statements about them? Apparently keeping his views to himself isn't sufficient.
Such assumptions evoke images in students' minds and effectively eliminate LGBT people as subjects of discourse....
This, combined with the first part is rather onerous. It allows only positive discourse with regards to this group. Any negative discourse (a concept that is totally undefined) is prohibited. While I can appreciate the notion of making all students feel safe and welcome to learn, I think it is a serious mistake to make any group above valid criticism. Are people who fall into the LGBT catagory without any flaws in general that can be discussed?
Frankly I can't see how there can be a serious discussion of something like Gay Marriage (something I have no problem with) at UCLA. There are obviously two sides to the issue, but this policy strikes me as prohibiting the con side. It doesn't allow the issue to be addressed, it merely sweeps it under the rug and pretends it isn't there or only allows one side to have a voice. That is a restriction on the freedom of speech and inquiry. Something a university is supposed to promote.
Posted by Steve at January 27, 2004 10:43 AM