Is an academic discussion of free speech potentially traumatic? A recent panel for Smith College alumnae aimed at \u201cchallenging the ideological echo chamber\u201d elicited this ominous \u201ctrigger\/content warning\u201d when a transcript appeared in the campus newspaper: \u201cRacism\/racial slurs, ableist slurs, antisemitic language, anti-Muslim\/Islamophobic language, anti-immigrant language, sexist\/misogynistic slurs, references to race-based violence, references to antisemitic violence.\u201d<\/p>\n
No one on this panel, in which I participated, trafficked in slurs. So what prompted the warning?<\/p>\n
Smith President Kathleen McCartney had joked, \u201cWe\u2019re just wild and crazy, aren\u2019t we?\u201d In the transcript, \u201ccrazy\u201d was replaced by the notation: \u201c[ableist slur].\u201d<\/p>\n
One of my fellow panelists mentioned that the State Department had for a time banned the words \u201cjihad,\u201d \u201cIslamist\u201d and \u201ccaliphate\u201d \u2014 which the transcript flagged as \u201canti-Muslim\/Islamophobic language.\u201d<\/p>\n
I described the case of a Brandeis professor disciplined for saying \u201cwetback\u201d while explaining its use as a pejorative. The word was replaced in the transcript by \u201c[anti-Latin@\/anti-immigrant slur].\u201d Discussing the teaching of \u201cHuckleberry Finn,\u201d I questioned the use of euphemisms such as \u201cthe n-word\u201d and, in doing so, uttered that forbidden word. I described what I thought was the obvious difference between quoting a word in the context of discussing language, literature or prejudice and hurling it as an epithet.<\/p>\n
Two of the panelists challenged me. The audience of 300 to 400 people listened to our spirited, friendly debate \u2014 and didn\u2019t appear angry or shocked. But back on campus, I was quickly branded a racist, and I was charged in the Huffington Post with committing \u201can explicit act of racial violence.\u201d McCartney subsequently apologized that \u201csome students and faculty were hurt\u201d and made to \u201cfeel unsafe\u201d by my remarks.<\/p>\n
Unsafe? These days, when students talk about threats to their safety and demand access to \u201csafe spaces,\u201d they\u2019re often talking about the threat of unwelcome speech and demanding protection from the emotional disturbances sparked by unsettling ideas. It\u2019s not just rape that some women on campus fear: It\u2019s discussions of rape. At Brown University, a scheduled debate between two feminists about rape culture was criticized for, as the Brown Daily Herald put it, undermining \u201cthe University\u2019s mission to create a safe and supportive environment for survivors.\u201d In a school-wide e-mail, Brown President Christina Paxon emphasized her belief in the existence of rape culture and invited students to an alternative lecture, to be given at the same time as the debate. And the Daily Herald reported that students who feared being \u201cattacked by the viewpoints\u201d offered at the debate could instead \u201cfind a safe space\u201d among \u201csexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff\u201d during the same time slot. Presumably they all shared the same viewpoints and could be trusted not to \u201cattack\u201d anyone with their ideas.<\/p>\n