Responding to Hate Speech

This week, we are deliberating about hate speech--what it is, what free speech issues it raises, and how to respond to that speech in responsible (i.e. ethical) ways. We watched a film from the Working Group this week-- The Fire Next Time -- which I found to be a great examples of how to spark conversation about the issue. Based on our discussion yesterday in class, there is a lot more to talk about.

I was thinking about the question of how one responds to hate speech. The Working Group also made another film about hate in Northern California. I've not seen this one (but am going to see if I can Netflix it soon!). The companion KQED site has a section on response from local leaders. One excerpt caught my eye. In 2001, someone vandalized gay and lesbian themed books in the San Francisco public library. As San Francisco police detective Milanda Moore notes, people need to respond to hate; otherwise, it risks allowing it to continue.

"I always tell people that when you see the slightest thing that leads you to believe that someone has a hate bias, pay attention. Don't leave those things unchecked ... little things can build up into big things. If you see that someone is vandalizing library books, take the time to report it immediately. If you see someone outside writing on the side of the building, putting [up] swastikas, or someone talking about killing immigrants or something, take the time to call. Because it's that type of thing that leads other people; it may not even be that suspect, but it leads people to think that's OK. And in societies where such things are OK, that's where you start to see hate crimes flourish."

What's interesting to me here is the connection she makes between silence and consent, between the expression of hate speech and hate crimes. It highlights a difficult balance. One the one hand, it seems reasonable to want to promote a society that values open discussion and expression, a society that protects, or makes it safe, for people to live and work. American Wonder says it nicely in her blog: "One thought that stuck with me throughout the day connects our right as a citizen to the freedom of speech with a climate of fear and discrimination- are we free where hate exists?" Are we free where hate exists? That simple question really has me thinking.

So I was thinking about Moore's suggested response. In reporting someone writing on the side of the building, what are we doing? Are we directly responding to the speech (i.e. the climate of hate) or to the destruction of the property? What if that person was just outside the library spewing hate speech? I am always struck by the ends to which we will protect property (library walls) but be hesitant to protect people from the impact of hate speech (which some critical legal theorists have described as akin to "fighting words," a category of speech not protected by the first amendment).

So, I wondered what the library did in this case. Turns out they decided to make the vandalism done to those books the subject of an art project-- in other words, more speech. Called "Reversing Vandalism," the library also held workshops on responding to hate and screened the film. It also prompted a lot of media coverage. This seems like the perfect ethical response--turning hate into a learning moment and responding in a way that does not promote hate in reverse.

Needless to say, I am really looking forward to our discussion tomorrow to see what we all make of this.

Censorship of Ethical Editing?

I have to say, I was struck last week by the question we were discussing of what kinds of curriculum teachers (or public schools in general) should have, who decides what that curriculum is to be, and how many hands are in the pot, so to speak. Its a sticky issue and my many lenses on the matter force me to look carefully through those of others. As a teacher--of course a college teacher--I am always amazed at the degree of freedom I have in planning classes, readings, discussions and the like. Of course, I do run up against some limitations and its just that point I want to write about this week.

I raised the observation in class that since we are discussing the example of Annie Sprinkle this week in seminar, that I wanted to show a clip from Monika Treut's film "Female Misbehavior" a film I first saw years ago at the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. It was the first time I'd heard of Annie Sprinkle and was I floored. I just don't think I had ever seen anyone like her. Since Nan Levinson has a chapter about Sprinkle in Outspoken, our text for this class, I thought it was a perfect opportunity to have all of us view and decide.

But, as I was screening it last week and I just decided it was "too much" for class. Now Polgara, in our class, lamented that this was interesting that I might "censor" myself. I think its a little bit different from this assessment, so I want to consider an alternative.

I think its partly an ethical question and, frankly, a fear of a little embarrassment, than it is censorship, but I would be interested in seeing what others think. As a gay man, I am constantly aware of how sexuality is contested in contemporary U.S. society--especially anything remotely "different" or out of the mainstream. Annie Sprinkle, and other self described pro-porn feminists like Susie Bright (caution--some nudity here) were part of a wave of "pro-sex feminists" who pushed back at other feminist critiques of pornography. Sprinkle, and her unabashed attempt to demystify women's bodies, really pushed the envelope a little, some say, a little to far. I think what I was afraid of doing was re-producing those battles in class without the requisite groundwork. Would it be ethical to through the film out there and just see what happens? Or, would we need more background to discuss it in an ethical way? Or, was I just afraid to be the professor who showed "porn" in class. :) (Although this film is not porn, but documentary, experimental, and about someone who claims an identity as a performance artist).

I think I was also shaped by one prior experienc. When I first taught my GLBT history course at CSUMB (the first official such class to be offered here) I was nervous about it. During one film, I had a few students walk out of the video, presumably because it showed men kissing. A few critical teaching evaluations later about those films.... and you get the picture. So, I thought at the time... "oh my, this is about me and I should have been more respectful of those students." But, upon reflection, I realized that my reaction was a classic example of how self-censorship happens. Why should I apologize for a film showing real gay people!? What's to be ashamed of here? So I vowed it would not happen again.

Hmm... so now I'm back to this semester, and I just can't show that film. I wonder why this pushes my buttons and whether students would even care as much about it as I do. This is definitely worth further discussion.