Epilogue: The elephant in the room: freedom of speech
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
I tried to adopt a very conciliatory tone in my editorial on the mascot issue. I feel that the question is best solved through debate, mutual understanding and tolerance. I am willing to listen to and discuss arguments that nobody should depict caricatures of Native Americans. You may even convince me that people who do are outmoded and insensitive. But the moment you suggest that there should be restrictions on use of the depiction (copyright issues aside) or that we should punish those who see fit to display the Indian, you will lose me as a friend.
When President Hennessy implored the community to “take seriously the commitment in the Fundamental Standard to treat all members of the community with respect,” I believe he had in mind a moral imperative to act in a certain manner. Though President Hennessy did not suggest those involved in the Big Game incident could or should be disciplined, the next logical step might be to suggest that those who do not act in the spirit of the Fundamental Standard should face the ramifications of a Fundamental Standard violation, which can range from warnings, to community service and expulsion. Indeed, SAIO “recommends a more stringent policy for reacting to the wearing, printing, selling or promotion of the Stanford Indian mascot by Stanford affiliated parties.” This is problematic on several fronts.
First of all, any tightening of policy would run directly counter to California law. In the 1995 Corry v. Stanford decision, the Santa Clara County Superior Court struck down Stanford’s Speech Code, also known as the Grey interpretation of the Fundamental Standard, which had been in place since 1990. The Grey interpretation banned speech that met all of the three following criteria:
I. It is intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals on the basis of race, sex, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnic/national origin
II. It is addressed directly to the individual whom it stigmatizes
III. It makes use of insulting or “fighting” words or non-verbal symbols, which are words that are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of race, sex etc… (Verjee, Review 4/24/94)
The Court sided with the plaintiffs, nine Stanford students–including Review alumni Robert Corry and Aman Verjee, who had claimed that the Grey interpretation violated the Leonard Law, which applied First Amendment standards to private educational institutions. If the university were again to try to restrict speech, it would again run up against the law.
But I am deeply ambivalent about using this claim. I don’t think any of the criteria of the Grey interpretation apply to the situation at hand. The historical record certainly shows that it’s possible to like the Indian mascot or caricature without intending to insult or stigmatize. Displaying a caricature is hardly tantamount to directly addressing anyone. Anybody who suggests that Stanford students and alumni have a “direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human being” on the basis of anything is just plain nuts.
Far more important are the principles of intellectual respect and inquiry implicit in our motto, “Let the winds of freedom blow.” Every student who attends Stanford has an interest in intellectual inquiry and academic study. To suggest otherwise, to suggest that current and former students act out of racist grounds, to deny that they may have legitimate grounds for action, is an insult. It demeans the very idea of a university, that scholars can trade their opinions, when one group advocates for certain messages to be censured and censored. To assume your colleagues can act out of only one motive denies them agency, denies them equal participation in the inquiry, and insults their intelligence.
We must uphold the line holding us back from punishing certain forms of speech as sacrosanct. When that line is overstepped, something precious is lost: free thought.
