Free Speech and Misogyny

I suppose it was only a matter of time until someone trotted out this old -- and in appropriate -- saw: the dentistry students who created the "gentlemen's club" are protected by free speech. The story is here. In fact, I'm surprised that this argument has not been made earlier. A supposed free speech advocate at Saint Mary's has made this case. According to a CBC news story. His argument can be condensed to the following: 

“One of the things that a university should be concerned with is that everyone feels able to say what they want, that there’s candour and openness,” says Mercer. “Only in the context of candour and openness can views be explored fully and criticized fully."

“It doesn’t matter how ugly, how vile it is," Mercer said. "Any rules against speech have the potential of blocking the road of inquiry, of preventing us from being candid and examining what we want to say.”

Rather than simply calling this argument silly, let us take this self-defined advocate of free speech at his work and assess his argument.  There are actually several serious problems with this argument. By the way, before beginning, I would define myself as an advocate of free speech as well. In fact, I take free speech so seriously that I don't like to waste time defending sexism, racism, homophobia, and other such things because they detract from the importance of free speech. Free speech is a noble and important right in society that preserves the rights of citizens to question government and power structures, form alternative governments, and ensure artistic integrity. I've said this before: when free speech is reduced to defending bigotry, we debase its nobility and lessen its importance. Because it is about important things, because it is vital for democracy and the rule of law, we should not use free speech as a shield behind which people doing rotten things should be allowed to hide. If we do, we somehow draw an odd equivalent: that criticizing, say, trajectories of foreign policy is on the same level as suggesting that sex with an underaged babysitter is a good thing. Does any serious person think that? 

What are the problems with this argument? 

Well ... that is the first: let us call it the logic of misplaced equivalencies. In effect, Mercer is saying that there is some sort of merit to sexually rating classmates, joking about knocking female classmates out, or suggesting that lesbians can be fixed by heterosexual sex. The whole idea is odd and rather postmodern, in fact, in the sense that it makes no effort to differentiate what is important from what isn't. Are we happy with that? Do we feel that jokes about having sex with a babysitter is the equivalent of a great work of art? Or, a serious debate about trade or immigration policy? If not -- and, I don't -- let us not pretend that that is the case. Let's not, in other words, draw a false equivalency. We all agree that foreign policy and immigration policy or legal reform are important and require free consideration of the issue at hand. In fact, they stand for themselves. One never has to use a free speech argument to defend interventions about these issues (or, other measures) because we all know that they are important. If the misogyny of these dentistry students were that important, we would recognize it and say "yes, let us have a discussion of these issues."  We don't because ... well ... it is a retrograde step and not one that should be justified by such an argument. 

But, let's go even further. Free speech protects debate about important public issues because there are important issues that need to be considered. The proponents of, say, restrictive visas for Mexicans coming to Canada never argue that their opponents should be silenced; nor do those of us troubled by visa restrictions argument that their proponents should be silenced because they are making an argument. These students were not making an argument about anything. Hence, we need to ask: what would we be protecting if free speech allowed them to elide taking responsibility for their actions? Are they arguing that sex with underaged girls is good? If so ... stand up and make that argument. Are they arguing that it is legitimate to use a gas to knock a woman out to have sex with her? If so, be an adult about it and stand up and make that argument. 

They were not. In fact, these men made every effort -- as I discussed in a previous blog -- to disguise what they were doing. They were not debating admissions policies (where I might disagree with them but which would be a legitimate subject protected by free speech). They were not debating licensing of dentists (again, agree or disagree, room to debate and protected by free speech). They were making no argument whatsoever. Instead, they were engaged in actions that they knew were wrong and tried to disguise them. Said differently, we are dealing with apples and oranges here. There are many arguments with which I disagree (pro-fracking, for instance) on which I will not simply defend the rights of fracking advocates to speak publicly but I will, in fact, encourage them to do so for the sake of public debate. In this case, since there were no matters under debate but instead simple misogyny ... well ... what are we protecting?  

This is an important point because the argument in defence of free speech is intended to protect interchange in the public sphere; that is: arguments. What is there here, however, to be "fully explored?" Nothing. Hence, the argument that it should be protected by free speech is weak. 

Mercer also says that any regulations that prevent expression -- no matter "how vile" --  are wrong. To which I say "really?" If I used free speech to encourage attacks on himself and his family ... this would be vile. And, wrong. Is he prepared to allow that speech? I am not. The line is clear and hte fact I don't need my vileness (in this example) to be fully explored to say "no. This is not a legitimate use of free speech." 

Let's use another example: Does Mercer regulate his class in any way or does he allow students to say whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of its appropriateness or pertinence? If not, if he provides one bit of regulation -- telling a student, for instance, to not interrupt another -- then this argument is not an argument but hypocrisy. One either defends what is vile or one doesn't. One can't say "personal attacks that encourage violence are not allowed because they are vile" but "general attacks that encourage sexims are vile and allowed." Why can't one say this? Because one would be using a sliding scale that allows some things that are vile (misogyny) but not others (say, one student refusing to be quiet during another's presentation and loudly swearing at the presenting student). The issue is a matter of consistency: You either support some restrictions on free speech -- in which case we can have a discussion because as an advocate of free speech I do support some restrictions -- or, one cannot make the argument that some vile things are OK but others are not. Consistency is a hallmark of intellectual integrity ... at least in my book. 

Let's recap. I don't know Mercer. He might be a great guy, award winning teachers, and grade-A scholar. He might also be being misquote in the news story I cited. I am arguing that the arguments attributed to him by CBC do not apply. These students are not protected by free speech because (a) they were not making an argument by recycling misogyny  and fully understood that their actions were wrong (hence, their cover up efforts) (b) free speech is an important right and we should not draw equivalences where there is none, (c) one either defends "vileness" or one does not. If one restricts speech in some instances but not in others (on the grounds of its vileness) then one is inconsistent in the application of one's own doctrines. By the way, and anyone who follows my blog should know this, I reject the idea that free speech can defend attacks on individuals that cause them harm. I also believe that a bit of a regulation -- simply politeness is what I ask of my students -- is a good thing that can, in fact, broaden and organize discussion. In other words, serious inquiry and a full discussion of the issues at hand is helped -- not hurt -- by regulating speech. 

There are other points that need to be made here as well. I'll hit these quickly because they seem to me self evident:

1. Free speech cannot allow people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. In other words, if you knowingly do something that is wrong, you cannot hide behind a right. You have to accept responsibility for your actions. If one does not believe in responsibility ... well ... that is a matter we will need to discuss. My defense of the rule of law, however, is, I believe, consistent with the idea of responsibility. It appears -- I say "appears" -- because of the actions of the men involved; not because I have spoken to them -- that these men were actually looking to find ways to avoid responsibility. They were dumb (as I've said before) in believing that an internet social media club could ensure privacy ... but should they have to take responsibility for their actions -- in this case the violation of the University's code of conduct? Indeed, I'd argue that responsibility can be complicated but that the rule of law actually requires it. 

2. Dalhousie is not a public institution and as a private institution (or, semi-private; semi-public), it has the right to self-regulate. I don't always agree with the self-regulation of private institutions. I disagree, for instance, with some supposedly Christian universities that impose sexual orientation tests on employees. But, for good or ill, they have the right to self regulate (as I have the right to argue that they should change). Will Kymlicka deals with this matter much better than I do and so I'd refer you to him, particularly his discussion on communities and cultural regulation under multiculturalism. It can get complicated, but the point is that there are different standards. These standards must be legal, they can change, and they should be humane and fair, but a private institution has the right to exercise its authority over me if I go to participate in that private institution (even while I might argue that it should change). For instance, the local Legion can tell me to remove my hat as a sign of respect to war dead and if I don't ... they can remove me. I can argue against that but you see my point. The Legion justly exercises authority over me. Likewise, minor sports associations often have codes of conduct. Players are not allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want. They are bound by rules of sportsmanship which encourage good and fair play. Likewise, fans can be removed from, say, hockey rinks for what they say. And, no one doubts the fairness and appropriateness of this. A fan at a minor hockey game -- say, an Atom or PeeWee game -- encouraging violence against other players will be removed. And ... rightly so. 

Finally, a quick question ... why do the self-appointed defenders of free speech seem to waste so much time defending sexism, racism, homophobia and other such things. Can't they find progressive things -- things that make society more safe, broaden democracy, encourage public participation in politics -- to defend? I will confess I am confused about this.

To sum up: the argument for protection on the basis of free speech fails. It fails because it is being used not to advance argument on important matters of public policy or protect artistic integrity, but because it is being used to protect ... well ... no argument at all. Just misogyny. It fails because it claims a regulatory right over a private (or, semi-private) institution with a defined code of conduct about which these men knew and which they deliberately violated. I might have disagreed with these men but I would have defended their rights under free speech to make this argument "can we have a discussion of the University code of conduct?" But, that was not the argument they made. Instead, they knowingly violated rules to which they voluntarily agreed as a condition of their membership in this scholarly community. I believe that they should have to take responsibility for their actions. The free speech argument is also weak because it fails to consider context and consistency. Instead, it simply asserts absolutes that, if violated, expose one to the charge of hypocrisy. 

Now, I don't know if expulsion is the best option in this case. I honestly don't. But, if we want to have serious discussion of what these men did, let's do that. Let's not, however, have a fake one where we ignore potential hypocrisy (say, even my own), issue absolutist moral injunctions and pretend that anyone who thinks differently is wrong, or pretend that some great point of principle with regard to what these men said is at stake. It ain't. 

Dentistry and Responsibility and Misogyny

According to a number of news stories, Dalhousie University has decided to use a restorative justice process to address the participants in the "Gentlemen's Club" Facebook site. Is this a good idea. Frankly, I don't know because I actually know shockingly little about restorative justice. Commenting on it might end up being a big mistake because there is at best even odds that I'd get the issue wrong. Instead of taking a side on this issue, I think it is important to address a number of concerns people have raised that might help us think about the best way to approach these individuals and their actions; that is: what type of punishment is to be used. I say this because it strikes me that there has been a bit of confusing about this issue and what these men did. At least this is the impression I get from reading the comments on news stories and talking to people.

First, what strikes me as a matter of particular importance: these were not "young men." A number of comments refer to the organizers and participants in the "Gentlemen's Club" "young men", particularly to suggest (a) that the reaction against them is overblown, and (b) to suggest that some leeway should be given in terms of punishment because their youth is a mitigating factor.

Under Canadian law youth can be a mitigating  factor. That is: below a certain age, the law assumes that people lack a capacity to fully understand right from wrong. Thus, my daughter when she was three stole some candy from a store (we returned it). She would never have been tried for this because she was too young. This can be a bit of a complicated matter but, generally, under the age of twelve, no one can be charged with a criminal offense. There is then a bit of a middle ground (until one is seventeen) and then at eighteen, one is a legal adult. Even beyond that, however, most of us are willing to make some allowance for immaturity for people who are 18 or 19 or undergrads at university (up to, say, 22).

The point I want to make, however, and the point that needs to be made is that the individuals involved in this "Gentlemen's Club" are not simply legal adults, but they are not young men. Unless there is something really odd going on with Dal's dentistry programme, these are all individuals who have at least one university degree behind them, have been able to vote for years, may have their own families, etc. I don't know about the last one but I will take it that the point has been proved. It is very, very difficult -- unless we want to stretch the definition of "young" beyond recognition -- to maintain that these are young men. The defences that go with the legal category of youth, therefore, do not apply. In short, whatever punishment is affixed, youth cannot be a mitigating factor.

Second, the individuals involved were well aware that what they were doing was wrong. Of this, there seems to be no doubt. When this Facebook page became broader knowledge, at least one participant suggested a cover up. CBC news reported that a post on the page read: "RED ALERT!!!!! RED F--KING ALERT!!!!!" reads one post. "Apparently one of the ladies has seen or heard something about the recent posts in the gentleman's. We have to get rid of the evidence." I actually don't have much more to say about this. What we have here is individual who, in the rest of their lives, would claim the rights of responsible adults who are trying to cover up behaviour that they know is wrong. Another post -- again according to CBC -- had as an option to actually do nothing "unless the shit hit the fan." In other words, if they go away with it, they would keep the page going. It was getting caught … not maturity, or ethics that stopped this site.

Third, I think that the women who are these men's classmates have every reason to be concerned. Individuals who are willing to suggest that lesbians should have sex with men so that they can become "productive" members of society have some pretty messed up values. If you add in the jokes about young girls (having sex with babysitters -- suggesting again that at least some of them have their own families) or knocking women out with chloroform … well … if I were them I'd be concerned too. I don't know who reads this blog but I have a teenaged daughter. She does not babysit, but she took the babysitting course when she was twelve and I'm disturbed about this. I don't want adults making jokes about having sex with her right now. Certainly … when she was twelves … well … I'd have been tempted to do something.

Fourth, I've also heard some people say that this is a "complicated" issue (I've read this is new comments as well). "Complicated" is one of those words -- like "young" -- that is often used to mitigate actions. How is this complicated? A group of adult men in a professional programme knowing did something wrong. What is complicated about that? If I speed on the highway and then lie to the police officer to try to get away with it, is that complicated? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm asking an honest question because it does not strike me as complicated at all. In fact, the very opposite: it seems open and shut.

I don't want to come off as some sort "shoot 'em at dawn" type of law-and-order conservative. I don't imagine myself that way. Nor do I particularly envy the people who are going to have to make the decisions on this one. Here is, however, what I think I would do in their shoes: I'd urge the men involved to take responsibility for their actions. They might not want to but I'd tell them that (a) there really aren't any mitigating factors in their favour, (b) what they did was wrong and they knew it. We expect better of our professional and better of members of our communities. (c) I'd tell them that that is what adults do. They don't try to wiggle out of their own responsibility. They accept it and accept the consequences. I'd also tell them that accepting responsibility for their actions was a way that they could start to address the problems they have created because they (e) should do something to address the problems, particularly with their fellow students.

Now, some of this may already have been done, already. I'd urge the administration of the school of dentistry and of Dalhousie University to meet with the female students. I'd get their views on what they think a reasonable approach to this issue would be. I'd also meet with the male students who were not members of this club. I'd get their views, too, but I'd also want to ask some tough questions: did you know about this club? If you did … what do you think your responsibilities were? One of the good things that might be able to come out of this mess is a learning opportunity, a open dialogue on the proper behaviour of students and professionals.

Should these men be suspended? I don't want to dodge this question because that would be … well … dodging a question. I'll first say that universities have both a limited and large number of sanctions available to them. They apply to both academic issues (say, like cheating) or behaviour. Mount Allison -- where I work -- addresses issues relating to misbehaviour all the time. That is not unusual. Theoretically, there are a range of options one could follow but in practice these tend to be reduced to (a) fines, (b) taking extra sessions on various things (why not to cheat, say), (c) lowering of grades (if one cheated), (d) probation (which is a warning) (e) suspension, (f) expulsion.

In recent years, the people who address student misbehaviour at Mount A have gotten a bit more creative and have tried other types of things (extra papers, for instance). I don't follow this aspect of Mount A very closely, however, so I can't speak with any more authority than I have on it.

I don't want to get all wishy-washy here, but I'd like to believe that people can change. If the female classmates of these people were OK with this, my temptation would be to try to find some mechanism whereby these men could take responsibility for their actions, learn from them, and still get their degrees. They may have a tough time getting jobs, but they will. And, I'd guess that they will get jobs one way or the other. If expelled, for instance, they might not get jobs as dentists -- although I suspect that they would be able to find a dental school somewhere else that would take them and let them  finish their degree -- but they will get jobs. What I'd like to see, then, is some approach that moves these men down the right track, away from the disturbing behaviour in which they have been engaged.

The Stupidity of Misogyny

Dalhousie University is in the news because some of its male dental students maintained what I recall is a Facebook page that -- among other things -- sexually rated their female colleagues. Styled as a virtual “gentlemen’s club” (or, some such bizarre euphemism), the site and the students are under investigation by the University. The problem, of course, is not just Dalhousie University. Over the last several years, we've seen a number of incidents on Canadian campuses and in the wider society that suggest not simply that misogyny is alive and well, but that what we are seeing is a deeply disturbing, violent form of misogyny that presents women as vehicles for male sexual pleasure. The sexist frosh orientation chant at SMU last year amounted to the same thing; investigations of the sexual  conduct of hockey players at one Ontario school is another. For those of us who had hoped that Canada had turned a page on sexism ... these are not good signs. Let us reflect on the disturbing feature of what went on at Dalhousie as a bit of a case study into contemporary sexism. My thesis is short and simple: whomever put this “club” together and participated in it and not just sexist; they are stupid. We are right to be concerned about this behaviour and for a variety of reasons.

The first thing we should note is that sexist behaviour -- particularly aggressive male sexually-oriented verbal and physical attacks on female students -- often gets a “pass,” at least in some quarters. At least among some of the people I talk to, it is chalked up undergrad hijinks: immature young people doing stupid and disturbing but ultimately harmless things. They shoot their mouths off after they've drunk too much and do things that they later regret or, worse, don’t yet understand that they should regret.

I've never agreed with this argument. I’m not a law-and-order, fire-and-brimstone kind of person. I do think that people should be given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, make amends, and develop into good people who care for -- rather than sexually demean -- others. But, to state that point as if it were the end of the issue misses the central question that we should be asking about this or other forms of disturbing behaviour: why do these people behave in *this” specific way. Why sexism, in other words? (I know that there are other forms of prejudiced behaviour that Canada needs to address -- racism, homophobia, and others -- but  am focusing on this one right now.) We need to see things like this “club” at Dalhousie as part of a cultural pattern that masquerades as hijinks.  After all, hijinks could end up being just good fun. It could be a practical joke on a dorm mate (I will confess that I did that sort of thing “back in the day” at which everyone has a good laugh). This is not that.  This pattern works with some of the darkest elements of Canadian culture that these students are obviously getting from somewhere. Thus, one of the more disturbing things about what has gone on at Dalhousie (or, other institutions) is that it shows us that there is a culture “out there” that views the sexual abuse of women as (a) funny, (b) OK, (c) something to articulate.

But, worse than that, the SMU and Dalhousie incidents are not just reflections of sexism in society. They serve to perpetuate sexism and a culture that sees sexual abuse as normal and entertaining. Years ago Michel Foucault argued hat power functions through a myriad of de-centred institutions in society. It was certainly unequal but, he suggested, viewing power as a zero-sum type-of-thing that is held by some people wielded over others missed how it actually functioned. Institutions served to make power work. It moved through them and in the process became more efficient and reinforced itself. We need to see this “club” at Dalhousie (or, the incidents at other institutions) as part of this process.  Sexist orientation programmes or virtual communities that rate the sexual appeal of female students, in this way, serve to maintain, reinforce, and naturalize those deeply disturbing trends in Canadian culture. In other words, they don’t simply reflect them (or, even the predispositions of those involved) but actively create a culture in which sexual abuse is treated as natural, normal, and just plain fun. Moreover, by virtue of their very public nature they make this statement: its OK to say it.

Virtual communities are even more insidious. If the people who ran the SMU orientation did something disturbing (not just because of what they had frosh chant but because someone, somewhere who organized the orientation programme must have thought that what they were doing was perfectly OK -- otherwise they would not have done it). The people who engineered the Dalhousie “gentlemen’s club” might be of even greater concern because they operated in the in-between space of internet social media. This space is an odd space because it is at once private and public. It is under private control and subject -- supposedly -- to privacy. I have a Facebook page and only those people who I accept as “friends” can see it. On the other hand ... we all know that these sites are there. Like the gentlemen’s clubs of old, we might not know precisely what goes on inside, but we know that something is (or, was) going on. It is this nether space that makes the incident at Dalhousie dentistry so concerning because it tries to shroud what is, in fact, a very public sexism in the veneer of privacy all the while maintaining its public character.

Finally, for me, the incident at Dalhousie raises another concern and here I might speak as a man, a parent, and person who goes to the dentist. I expected better of these people. Some people reading this blog might be surprised that I did. After all, a number of my colleagues might say, “what, have you had your head in the sand? A culture that minimizes the sexual abuse of women and that treats women as sex objects is not a secret. How could you be surprised?” A good question because I don’t consider myself to be naive. But, for me -- for right or for wrong -- there was a difference between a drunk 19 year old manipulated by a stupid upper-class student to chant a disturbing chant and ... well ... adults who are on their way to being professionals in our community. My dentist is a great guy. He’s well respected, works hard, will see someone for an emergency problem just about any time one needs to. He is polite, professional, properly attired, and does not tell off-colour jokes when I am around him or make derogatory, sexist comments.  A final disturbing thing for me is that these people were supposed to be like that. They cannot pretend that they were kids (they are not; they are all on -- I hazard a guess -- at least their second degree, admission to which requires a shockingly high academic standing). They are going to make claims after they graduate -- and perhaps before -- to be responsible professionals who take their duty of care for the other seriously by virtue of their profession.  I guess I was the same age as these men when I went to graduate school. I had been married for a number of years, had a child, and was training for what I thought then -- and continue to think now -- is a responsible professional career. I had my dumb moments but my goal was to act like an adult and my peers and I looked down on those graduate students who behaved like drunk undergrads on a Friday night at the student pub. These  people have behaved much much worse.

And, it is not simply that they acted in a way that exposed their sexism. They were stupid about it, too. Now, I hasten to add that I am not arguing for smart sexism -- a sexism that can cover itself up so well that it can hide from public scrutiny. What shocks me is not just that these dentistry students did not behave like dentistry students -- or, reasonable ordinary adults -- should. They were so God-awful dumb in doing so. Seriously ... did they somehow think that the nether world of social media would protect them from taking responsibility for their actions? I almost want to say “please tell me that this is not true.”

Let me try to conclude on a positive note. If there is something good to have come out of this incident and others like it, it is that Dalhousie has acted. It is starting to become clear that they did not act as quickly as they should have (and that might be the subject of another blog) but they did act, as did SMU. As at SMU, there was a torrent out outrage. There appears to be this time, too. That is heartening. Even if the administrators at Dalhousie acted only to protect its reputation (something I do frankly doubt), at least the public attention is there, the problems have been pointed out, and we are having a serious discussion of them. In other words, what I hope is a silver lining is this: if this incident exposes and reinforces deeply disturbing trajectories of Canadian culture, it also shows the opposite. That there are people willing to stand up for equality and safety and be counted and willing to demand that others do so as well.