Reader Will Moisis writes:
You may be interested in the University of Sydney’s extraordinary hamfisted attempt at limiting free speech on their campus.
They received 51 submissions, and the report recommends:
“Mr Hodgkinson acknowledges that academic freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental to the University and that these rights are limited by the law. While freedom of speech does not permit the use of hate speech or vilification, the report notes that difficulties arise when different parties have divergent views on the legitimate use of words or phrases because the intended meaning of the speaker has not been made clear.
The report proposes that the University implement a new civility rule that requires any speaker using University facilities to make the meaning of contested words and phrases clear to the audience.”
How would they go about this?
“9. The University should amend its policies and procedures to make clear that each person utilising a word or phrase is responsible at the time the word or phrase is used to identify to the audience the context in which it is used. (New Civility Rule)
- A failure to conduct a lecture, seminar, tutorial or a meeting which takes place within any of the University’s facilities in accordance with the New Civility Rule should be recognised as misconduct and treated accordingly.
- The University’s policies be amended to make clear that Organisations are responsible for conducting all meetings held by them using University facilities in compliance with the Civility Principles.
Where an Organisation breaches this requirement, it will be liable to sanction for breach of the University’s policy.
- The University policies should be amended to require Organisations, when conducting a meeting using University facilities, to comply with the University’s Civility Principles.
In order to hold an office or position within an Organisation the persons holding that office or in that position must have completed the Engaging with Civility module.”
I’m sure philosophers of language would have much to say about the ‘new civility rule’.
Aside from its obvious stupidity, I am not sure how this solves any problem. Must I always define a ‘woman’ when I speak the word— a notoriously contested word on university campuses? And if people disagree— what then? What is a contested phrase, anyway? If I fail to define, say, ‘pluralism’, will I be punished? And if I start every talk with the statement ‘every phrase I henceforth speak is defined such that it adheres to the university’s code on freedom of expression’, does this satisfy my obligations under the Civility Code?
UPDATE: Sydney speakers take note, philosopher Tad Brennan has solved the problem:
It really doesn't seem that burdensome to me.
"...each person utilising a word or phrase is responsible at the time the word or phrase is used to identify to the audience the context in which it is used."
All I have to do is to say, "I am speaking to you now, here."
Remote and delayed broadcasts aside, that statement correctly identifies "the context...in which...the word or phrase...is used."
Problem solved!
Recent Comments