Nat Hentoff, "Should This Student Been Expelled"

In America, controversy has always surrounded the First Amendment which grants freedom of speech.
From the politicians, to lawmakers, to ordinary citizens, the arguments for and against what one should say and how one should say it continues to rage on, as some people try to change, abuse or misuse this amendment which was  handed down by America’s forefathers. And on the night of October 18^th 1990, a Brown’s University student and Varsity football player stirred further controversy which added to the growing debate on the First Amendment (1991). Doug Hann was intoxicated on his twenty-first birthday when he shouted outside his dormitory window, “Fuck you niggers!” The racially derogatory statements caused great offence to many students, and a freshman consequently opened his window and politely asked Hanns not to be so loud and offensive. According to the Brown Daily Herald, the polite request was met with further offensive insults, after Hanns noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm. He shouted, “Fucking Jew!” causing further offense to another group of students.

Defence

In an article from the Village Voice titled Should this student have been expelled? Widely published author Nat Hentoff argued in Hann’s defence saying that he had a right to freedom of speech and shouldn’t be expelled. (1991). Despite Hentoff’s declaration that Hanns shouldn’t be punished, it is inarguable Hanns had no excuse for hurling racist, anti Semitic insults. He incited a breach of the peace and a heated verbal confrontation ensued between the friends of Hanns and the freshman. The consequences for Hann’s irresponsible racist and bigoted insults could have been devastating, possibly resulting in violence. Though it didn’t result in violence, it did cause a heated campus debate. Taking that into account, he should not have been expelled
.

.Gone too far

The Undergraduate Disciplinary Council and the president of Browns University Vartan Gregorian deliberated and agreed that Hanns had gone too far with his liberty of speech. Hanns was expelled and barred from the university for life. However, according to the New York Times Gregorian denies that they have expelled anyone for the exercise of free speech.(201)

Henoff, who is also known for his writings in the New Yorker and the Washington Post argued in the Village Voice article, that it was unfair and hypocritical of the Browns University president to use the “hate speech code” to expel  Hanns. Henoff quoted Gregorian’s words from a press release which stated that “the Browns Codes do not proscribe words, epithets, or slander, they proscribe behavior.”(203)

Henoff believed that the, “hate speech codes” which was use in Hann’s expulsion, violated the first amendment and Hann’s right to exercise freedom of speech. The “hate speech” code had been around for a while and no one had ever been expelled for violating any of these codes until Hanns. This caused quite a stir and attracted much attention to the case
.

.Support for Hann

The National Institute Against Prejudice claimed that it had never heard of a case like Hann’s. They said in other instances that they knew of, the accused students were sent for counseling and not expelled.

They appeared favorable to the presidents of those educational institutions adding that they wise enough to help the students not expel them.

Other apparent supporters of Hann’s included the ACLU, free thinkers on the student paper and unaffiliated objectors to expelling students for what they say opposed to what they do (202).

After much criticism for his action, President Gregorian wrote a letter to reputable newspaper -the New York Times, justifying his actions by introducing the university’s code of conduct.

The Way Forward 
Of course both Hentoff and President Gregorian could argue their points continuously resulting in no resolution to the question of whether Hann should have been expelled or not. Some legal scholars say that the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech. In a New York Times article titled “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech” and dated June 12^th 2008, Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher is quoted from a New York Review of Books saying: “It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.” Waldron’s view is worth consideration because the reality is that hurling hateful and racist speech towards minorities is protected by the First Amendment, even when it causes much distress to people and incites loathing and violence. Perhaps the answer lies in reforming America’s laws on hate speech and possibly updating the First Amendment to make clearer distinctions between exercising one’s right to freedom of speech as opposed to using hate speech with the intention of causing offense to minorities and possibly inciting a breach of the peace.

 

References:
Nerula, Smita. Good Riddance. Browns Daily Herald, (February, 13)
The New York Times, (February 12) 
Henoff, Nat. Should This Student Have Been Expelled. Village Voice (1991)

Is the "F" Word Really That Bad?

The title alone is an attention getter in Mary Sherry’s “In Praise of the “F” Word”, myself and my classmate both said “Oh my!” when we first read the title. Her meaning of the “F” word is just about as bad as the other meaning, most people do not like or want to fail at anything. 

Sherry elaborates on how many of our school’s seniors graduate with the inability to read and write at levels, which will give them the foundation to succeed in their adult life. Then the graduates find this out for themselves, when they are unable to continue their education or succeed in their career choice. “Eventually a fortunate few will find their way into educational repair shops—adult-literacy programs, such as the one where I teach basic grammar and writing” (Sherry p. 160).

In her own life’s experience, Sherry finds that the possibility of failure helped her youngest son. She tells how her son’s senior English teacher, Mrs. Stifter’s style of teaching certainly gained  her son’s attention with just a few words “She is going to flunk you” (Sherry p. 161). Sherry agrees this will not inspire every student to achieve better grades. 

Being a teacher herself, Sherry blames the teachers for passing along students instead of failing them like they deserve. Her belief is to use the threat of failure as “….a positive teaching tool” (Sherry p. 162). Yet, for this teaching tool to work, the teacher must be ready to give the “F” when the student does not improve his or her grades. Sherry also states the parents have to understand this for the best and totally support the teacher. 

Sherry truly believes this teaching tool gave her son the choice; he could continue the path he was on and fail or realize the “F” word was serious and change his course to succeed. The “F” word should not be shunned as a bad word, but embraced as a teaching tool for our young students to have a successful future. 

Work Cited

Sherry, Mary. “In Praise of the “F” Word.” Connections: Reading for First-Year Writing.     Clayton State University, 2011. 160-162.

Secrets of the Unknown

Behind the Formaldehyde Curtain (1998) written by Jessica Mitford

Mitford takes us through the processes of embalming after death. Although this process may be hard to stomach for most. The embalming process is extraordinary and very detailed. The purpose is to present the family with a memorable image of their family member.

Mitford reveals step by step the curiosity of most, the operations of embalming.  In the early days of embalming according to Mitford, it was mandatory that family was to stay by the side of the deceased to witness the embalming process. Today by law families are excluded from this process(73).

Embalming, in most modern cultures, is the art and science of temporarily preserving human remains to forestall decomposition and to make them suitable for public display at a funeral. The three goals of embalming are thus sanitization, presentation and preservation (or restoration) of a corpse to achieve this effect. Embalming has a very long and cross-cultural history, with many cultures giving the embalming processes a greater religious meaning (wikipedia)

Mitford introduces, Mr. Jones the deceased is being prepared to be laid to rest, to bid his final farewell to his family. Now at the hands of skilled practitioner, time is not on his side. The embalming process is to be done in a timely manner. The earlier this is done the better, for every hour that passes between death and the embalming will add to the problems and complications of the process. This process has removed the fears of most in early years of a live burial. The blood is drained through the veins and embalming fluid pumped in through the arteries. Lyf-lyk tint is applied to give the appearance of natural skin texture. About three to six gallons of a dyed and perfumed solution of formaldehyde, glycerin, borax, phenol, alcohol, and water is soon circulating through Mr. Jones veins. The embalming process has began.(75) Mr. Jones face is heavily creamed to protect the skin from burns which may be caused by leakage of the chemicals, then he is covered and left untouched for a while.

It is clear in just seconds of reading this that Mitford wants to show the solitude of this process. Her purpose is to give readers an idea of the careful preparations of the death.  She doesn’t make this process seem creepy but paints a picture of how valuable life is after death. Although the topics of death, embalming are not the most entertaining or most welcoming read. I thought Mitford tone was very carefully thought out to convey to the audience this sympathies of death.