SPEECH PERVERSION
By Chuck Muth (07/31/05)
According to a recent news story, a state university professor in New Jersey, the head of the women's studies department, sent out an unsolicited email message to a student-employee at the school advertising the showing of a film described as a "lesbian relationship story." The student-employee replied in an email that according to his religious beliefs, lesbian relationships are a "perversion" and asked that he not be sent any more email on such subjects.
At that point, the professor should have simply removed the guy from her email list. Instead, she's making a federal case out of the matter.
Prof. Arlene Holpp Scala forwarded the employee-student's email to the university's Office of Employment Equity and Diversity, claiming the man's "message to me sounds threatening and in violation of our university's non-discrimination policy." She added, "I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work when I send out announcements about events that address lesbian issues."
At that point, what the university should have done was tell the professor to get a life and stop "spamming" people about her lesbian events. Case closed.
Instead, University President Arnold Speert issued a letter of reprimand to the student-employee, in which he maintained that the word "perversion" was "clearly a derogatory or demeaning term." Duh. Speert also said the man was guilty of violating New Jersey's discrimination and harassment regulations.
It gets worse. The student-employee appealed the reprimand to the state's Attorney General's office, which dismissed the appeal on the grounds that "speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected by the First Amendment."
Good grief. Where to begin.
First, the student-employee who objected to lesbianism as a perversion isn't, as many would suspect, a fundamentalist Christian. Jihad Daniel is Muslim. Now, if he was a Christian, he'd be fair game in the press and the liberal establishment (but I repeat myself). The mainstream media loves to beat up on Christians. But Muslims are a politically protected minority in this country today. So the left is in a quandary on this one.
That being said, Daniel's claim that his First Amendment rights have been violated is just plain wrong. The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to say whatever you want free of consequences; only that Congress is prohibited from passing any laws which prohibit you from saying whatever you want (with the notable and detestable exception of the McCain-Feingold law; but I digress). The fact is, Congress did not pass any law prohibiting Daniel from calling lesbians a bunch of perverts.
But that doesn't make how he has been treated any less offensive.
Next, the cost of college tuition has gone through the roof. Kids and their parents are finding it increasingly difficult to finance four (or more) years of post-secondary education. So why in Hades does William Paterson University even have an "Office of Employment Equity and Diversity"? For that matter, why do they even have a women's studies department? Is there a men's studies department? Now THAT'S discrimination.
And if anyone harassed anyone, it was Professor Scala who sent out an unsolicited email to Mr. Daniel. All he did was respond to the contact which SHE initiated in the first place.
And whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Exactly how does Mr. Daniel calling lesbians "perverts" threaten ANYONE. And how does sending an email response to a "spam" email constitute "discrimination" or "harassment"?
And what the heck is President Speert thinking? Is he going to issue a letter of reprimand to every student or school employee who uses a "derogatory or demeaning term" in the future? He's gonna burn up his word processor. What if someone on campus calls someone else "fat" or "lazy" or "ugly" or "stupid"? Or, God forbid, suppose a student gets caught calling a professor a "liberal." I guess that would warrant expulsion, huh?
And what in the world is the Attorney General's office thinking? They would be correct to maintain that private emails between consenting adults at a university are not covered by the First Amendment, but not for the reason the AG coughed up. As noted earlier, Daniel's speech is not covered by the First Amendment because this matter has nothing to do with Congress making a law "abridging the freedom of speech." The university is free to handle this matter as it sees fit, no matter how stupidly it chooses to do so.
But that's not why the AG upheld Mr. Daniel's reprimand. No, the AG's office claimed Mr. Daniel's speech wasn't covered by the First Amendment simply because it violated "a non-discrimination policy." Morons. (Oops, did I just violate a non-discrimination policy?)
The real perversion here is what the far-left, politically correct political establishment is doing to the idea that, while one may not agree with what another says, his or her right to say it is to be defended. That such a core principle of human liberty is being lost on university campuses, supposed cradles of education, is all the more the shame.
Copyright 2005 Chuck Muth. All rights reserved. "Muth's Truths" may be republished providing the column is copied intact, and full credit is given.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Chuck Muth
