Customer Reviews

Free Speech on Campus

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

My general impression is that the book seems to have been put together in a hurry. Its central idea is not affected, but some of the sections are a bit repetitive or unnecessary if we consider that the book is mainly addressed to the university population. For example in Chapter Three, Golding makes a long discussion to demonstrate that sociobiology lacks academic respectability. It seems that Golding wants to make sure that his readers understand that sociobiology is pseudo-science, which I believe is something that is already understood by educated people. That is to say, I would have trouble considering a scholar as a serious professional if he or she held the view that, say, because nature generally makes men physically stronger than women, the conclusion is that we ought to deem women inferior (Something that a proponent of sociobiology might perhaps hold).

But an objection may be that not all know or agree that sociobiology is a phony science, and so Golding shows why. My problem, however, is that if one does not already know the difference between science and pseudo-science, that is, between biology and sociobiology, I think that one will very unlikely be persuaded by Golding's argument against speech codes; and if one regards sociobiology as good science, one will not be impressed by Golding's argument against it, anyway. I had a discussion with Mr. Cahn, the editor, who was upset about my comment and said that Golding does not argue against sociobiology. So, why mention sociobiology at all?

There is another section of Free Speech on Campus that in my opinion could have been omitted without losing important information, and that is Chapter Two. The chapter is a discussion that purports to show that "the university is an institution that exists for the dissemination and advancement of knowledge: teaching, learning, scholarship, and inquiry; in a phrase, the pursuit of knowledge by students and faculty." (p. 15) This discussion could be useful, perhaps, to an individual who knows nothing about the function of universities. But if this is the case, I do not see why such an individual, lacking the knowledge that the university is an institution for the advancement of knowledge by students and professors, would ever pick up this book. I cannot imagine a person interested in academic ethics who ignores the function of the university. And nor do I believe it be necessary to add any more than "the university is an institution that exists for the dissemination and advancement of knowledge: teaching, learning, scholarship, and inquiry; in a phrase, the pursuit of knowledge by students and faculty." But yet Golding, to pages later, says that "It is an idea as old as Plato that institutions are brought into existence because of social need, the fulfillment of which is regarded as a value." (p. 18)

Chapter Two, "A Constitutional Sine Qua Non: Specialist Faculty," is again a bit of rhetoric; for, Golding wants to make sure that the reader knows that teachers are experts who perform different roles and activities; these roles and activities are determined by "the university's function, goal, or purpose--the pursuit of learning. Then what follow are two more short sub-sections entitled "The Pursuit of Knowledge," and "Is it A Myth?" They continue on the same line by justifying the existence of the university as a marketplace of ideas, and that it is not a myth that the university is a marketplace of ideas. In short, while Chapter Two might be useful to those who are not familiar with the function and importance of universities, it makes others want to jump directly to Chapter Three.

Furthermore, I would like to make a remark on Golding's observation about a student's father asking the president of a college whether it would be possible to hang a banner with the slogan "Homosexuality Sucks" on a college building; (p. 7) the answer of the president was that such a banner could never be tolerated. Golding writes that "Why it couldn't be tolerated isn't clear to me...But shouldn't it be tolerated? If one banner is the expression of an idea, isn't the other (its opposite) also the expression of an idea?" (p. 7) My answer to these questions is the following--no, one slogan is not really the opposite of the other; for, the opposite of "Homosexuality Sucks" is "Homosexuality Does Not Suck." So, there is a big difference between hanging a banner that reads, as cited by Golding's first example, "Homophobia Sucks" and one that says "Homosexuality Sucks." The former is silly and, in my opinion, should not be used by college students who should dedicate their time on studying, though the idea being expressed does not carry a discriminatory attitude. But the latter, clearly attacks certain people for their sexual preferences; it carries a contemptuous message. I presume that homosexuals do not choose to prefer same sex just as a blond person did not choose to be blond. Nevertheless even if people choose to be homosexuals, their choice does not harm anybody. But on the other hand, people do decide whether they want to be racist or homophobic, and when they do, they inevitably harm or offend others.

Is it okay to hang a banner on campus that says "Homophobia Sucks" but not one that says "Homosexuality Sucks"? Can rape be discussed in the law school classroom without creating a "hostile" environment for female students? While Golding deplores hate speech, he examines campus speech codes critically and finds them lacking.