The latest culprit is Steven Shaviro, an English professor at Wayne State, who posted on Facebook his view that it would be better to kill bigoted speakers rather than simply protest them, offering this analogy:
The exemplary historical figure in this regard is Sholem Schwarzbard, who assassinated the anti-Semitic butcher Symon Petliura, rather than trying to shout him down. Remember that Schwarzbard was acquitted by a jury, which found his action justified.
The idiot right (like the site linked above) glossed this bizarre post as Shaviro advocating murder "for those he disagreed with," but as the analogy with Schwarzbard suggests, "disagreement" is not sufficient: after all, he murdered someone who was a butcher of Jews in Ukraine. What's slightly nuts about Shaviro's post is analogizing mass murder to the expression of racist views: speech and action aren't the same, despite the best efforts of many folks to confuse the two. (Being an English professor, Shaviro throws in "transphobic" views to the list of views that warrant murder!) Anyone who decides to kill a bigot will not be acquitted. So Shaviro's post is idiotic and ignorant on many levels.
The University President, who is apparently as clueless as Shaviro, immediately suspended the professor, declaring,
We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal.
Any member of the Wayne State law faculty presumably could have told the President that, in fact, Shaviro's speech is covered by the First Amendment, since it is neither a criminal threat nor criminal incitement to violence, and it's not even close. The University's obligation not to violate the First Amendment rights of faculty applies all the time: there is no exception for "morally reprehensible" speech. As things stand, Shaviro could sue the University for suspending him, arguably defaming him (as engaging in criminal speech unprotected by the First Amendment, and prevail.
As in most of these cases, there is only one sensible response for public universities: "Faculty speak for themselves, not the institution. The First Amendment protects faculty speech, even when it is offensive or mistaken."
UPDATE: Here is a pretty good description of what a "criminal threat" is; and here's a description of criminal incitement (imminent risk of violence is the key).
Recent Comments