Gee how the time flies. The ink on the post The Holy Inquisition of Political Correctness and toxicity has barely dried out, and we are up to a new twist on the subject of Political Correctness and freedom of speech in academia.
That post referred above was about a teacher in university almost crucified for showing her students a clip with an opinion on gender-neutral pronouns that goes against a prevailing PC line. Thus, according to the faculty, creating a toxic environment.
Now some people, as some people’s habit, have painted a swastika on the wall of a Rutgers university building. You would expect that the toxicity, introduced in such quantity into the peaceful environment of the august institution, would cause the anti-toxicity mechanisms going at full tilt.
And you would be wrong in your expectations: apparently this is fine in the framework of that elusive and hard to define freedom of speech thingy:
The president of Rutgers University has argued that the recent rash of anti-Semitism on campus is protected by the First Amendment.
Speaking during a student government town hall last week, Robert Barchi said: ‘If I’m a Ku Klux Klan member, and I’m going to burn a cross on a vacant lot, that’s a constitutionally protected right.’
‘You put that cross on my front yard, and you light it, that is not constitutionally protected, that’s harassment,’ Barchi said, according to Tap Into New Brunswick. ‘It’s an exception to the First Amendment.’
Well, I really don’t know what to say about it. Not without introducing some unneeded toxicity into the argument.
One should conclude that the consistent and correct use of gender-neutral pronouns beats a swastika any time.
Or is it the other way around?
P.S. There is more to the good dean than this post shows. Read the article.