Justice and reconciliation
Is there something in the water in Cambridge, or what? Is everybody crazy there? Crazy as in stark raving mad?
A Cambridge University student who sparked a huge row when he published anti- Islamic material has issued a grovelling apology. The 19-year-old second-year Clare College student went into hiding after he printed a cartoon and material satirising religion in college magazine Clareification…A Clare College spokesman said: “Because of the gravity of the situation and the diversity of views expressed about the best way of handling it, the Dean of Students set in train procedures for convening the Court of Discipline. As events unfolded, however, a collective decision was taken to pursue instead a course of restorative justice and reconciliation. The general and the guest editor were both formally reprimanded by the Dean of Students, and were also interviewed by the Master. The guest editor was required to publish an apology, and also to meet any students who asked to see him as well as senior representatives of Cambridge religious communities.”
The ‘gravity of the situation’? What gravity? What situation? Why was there any need to ‘handle’ it at all? What business did anyone have convening a Court of Discipline when no crime had been committed? (Had it? Please tell me Cambridge doesn’t actually have a law on the books against publishing cartoons. Please, please, please tell me that.) And what on earth makes them think there is any need to pursue ‘a course of restorative justice and reconciliation’? That kind of language is used in contexts of mass murders, years of systematic oppression, torture, war crimes, genocide. It’s not usually wheeled out because someone published a fairly mild cartoon! The imbecilic writer of the article can talk about ‘anti- Islamic material’ but no one is obliged to take that ridiculous phrase at face value.
A note of apology was distributed to all college members. The college is now arranging a meeting for next term to discuss the problem of maintaining free speech while avoiding offence.
Oh good. Splendid. That should be one hell of a long meeting. As a commenter at Mediawatchwatch wondered, ‘is that at the same meeting that the head of the Maths Department intends to square a circle?’
Thanks to Ben Goldacre to alerting me to this one.
Seems that Cambridge has finally caught up with Oxford, which expelled Shelley for writing a pamphlet attacking Christianity. Took them a while though – that was in 1811. We don’t seem to have moved on much since then.
That quotation encapsulates the sheer looniness of imagining that one can have free speech without allowing — nay,for? Uttering pablum? (Don’t answer that! It might offend one of them.)
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you’re not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
The Clash
This leaves me speechless with rage thanks O.B. for putting my feelings into words.
“What in Hell do those academics think free speech is for?”
Anything! Anything at all. Anything you like. Absolutely anything. As long as it avoids offence, of course.
[howls] Boooorn freeeeeee, as freeeeeee as the wind blows, la la la la
Let’s suppose a non-muslim stated:
“Women are inferior to men and are (always) subject to their orders”
And then try to defend that staement (which is, of course, from the “recital” …..
When, if ever, will they wake up?
And we also have in the report this factually inaccurate and causally confused claim, “A cartoon used was the same one which caused riots across the world when it was printed in a Danish newspaper.”
Read it and weep.
Only a few thoughts….did it offend anyone….did the person who made the cartoons feel remorse and regret….sounds to me that maybe these were met……therefore Restorative Justice would be a good way to sort out this…..people taking responsibility for their actions whilst repairing any harm caused to another.
Call it free speech if you wish, but when it hurts and harms others, we need to be careful…..as I say, only a few thoughts. Its not intended to upset anyone.
Thanks for the site.
Jenners
The Restorative Justice process requires (at least in the UK) a genuine crime to be committed first, where the victim has been traumatised by said crime and may have long-lasting ill effects, but who agrees willingly to meet the perpetrator. It has been shown to assist as part of a therapeutic process; it is also a process where the perpetrator may understand the broader implications of his or her crime, and the thus process may be of greater long term social benefit. Can anyone establish what this *crime* is first ? And explain why it is a crime, rather than just say a situation where there may be hurt feelings among a bunch of unrepresentative medievalists?
Unfortunately, the term has been abused and belittled by aun utterly craven CU. More ghastly corporate Newspeak, and from one of our ‘best’ effing universities too.
But Jenners, do you take claims of being offended to be the same thing as being harmed? Do you take offence to be the same as harm? In all cases?
Anyway, the authorities came down on the perp like a ton of bricks before anyone anywhere had raised a peep about being offended. If people claimed to be offended after that it’s not clear that they weren’t nudged into it by the caring authorities at Clare College. “Hello? You in the mosque there? Wake up! You’re offended! Say something already.”
OB, you claim then right (properly) to delete posts from this blog that you consider offensive, and to ban users that you consider offensive. I don’t see how that is different from the Clare College authorities in this case. Their gaff, their rules. It doesn’t matter whether or not we share their editorial values, they certainly have no moral obligation to adopt ours. Most people understand and accept this, I think, so there is a slightly dishonest tone to all the blogosperic flapping. If he had been publishing his own paper and come under similar pressure from outside, that would have been different.
“I don’t see how that is different from the Clare College authorities in this case.”
Really? You don’t? So quite apart from certain slight differences in heft, influence, history (length of), function, name recognition, real estate, architecture, and other odds and ends, you take me to be in the same kind of relation to commenters here as the Clare College authorities are to their students? Really? I must say I don’t.
“Most people understand and accept this”
John. Really.
“you take me to be in the same kind of relation to commenters here as the Clare College authorities are to their students?”
In regard to the free speech principle at stake, yes. I wasn’t (as I am sure you immediately realised) suggesting that you are yourself a Cambridge College, I was just pointing out that you claim the right to take similar actions to Clare College, without feeling you have to justify them to third parties. That does not compromise free speech. I do not have the right to say whatever I like on your blog, you are not obliged to let me. Equally Clare Collge need not allow students to make comments that they consider scurrilous or offensive in college publications.
‘”Most people understand and accept this”
John. Really.’
But I think most do, although some confusion about it arises from time to time with people insisting they have been ‘censored’ because their letter to the editor never got published. I think the Clare student has just had a lesson in the facts of life, that’s all.
But the Clare student works for the Clare paper; it’s not a case of an editor saying ‘no thanks,’ it’s a case of college authorities saying Mustn’t.
But in any case, your point is irrelevant, because I haven’t been talking about free speech or censorship; instead I’ve been talking about the inane over-reaction of the Clare authorities, their expressions of horror, their vows of punishment, their actual punishment, their forcing of the student to make what the CEN reporter sweetly called a ‘grovelling apology,’ their raving about justice and reconciliation as if the student had actually done something wrong (much wronger than just not being funny).
Well I agree with you about the overreaction and there is something craven and a bit putrid in it. But owners do, properly, have the right to say ‘mustn’t’ and I think that point is getting a bit lost in all the hoo-ha.
What are the facts of life the Clare student has just had a lesson in? That jokes about Islam are against an invisible unwritten law that applies in unspecified institutions and contexts and can be invoked at any time and enforced with protracted punitive meetings, interviews, public apologies, and demands for reconciliation and justice? And you think that’s a good thing, I take it?
How grotesque.
John, it’s the nature of and motivations for the College’s massive overreaction that’s in question here and the real societal implications. Substantially different from a blogger banning / deleting someone for calling someone names. One is important, the other is, well, trite.
“I think that point is getting a bit lost in all the hoo-ha.”
Because – ? You think so because you think that’s an important point, more important and more interesting than the coercive bullshit streaming from Clare College authorities? I must say I don’t.
Anyway Clare College authorities aren’t in fact the owners of the student paper. They don’t own the paper the way you own the shirt you’re wearing, and it’s silly and misleading to pretend they do.
“What are the facts of life the Clare student has just had a lesson in?”
That there is no such thing as a free lunch. If he wants complete freedom of opinion in print, he’ll have to pay for it.
“Because – ? You think so because you think that’s an important point, more important and more interesting than the coercive bullshit streaming from Clare College authorities?”
I don’t know if it is more important but is more interesting to me, naturally. The tone of Cambridge college statements about their internal publications is something I’m not much concerned about. If there were a point of principle at stake as many people seem to me to be claiming, then it would matter, but there isn’t any such principle as far as I can see.
And if he wants freedom from arbitrary punishment for breaking laws that don’t exist, will he have to pay for that too? If he wants freedom from being publicly dressed down and made to lick everyone’s boots, will he have to pay for that too?
In any case you’re ignoring the fact that college newspapers aren’t just commercial market papers; they serve other – educational – purposes.
Naturally? What do you mean naturally? What are you, Rupert Murdoch incognito?
And if you can’t see far enough to see that there is any such principle, then I have bad news for you: you’re blind.
“And if he wants freedom from arbitrary punishment for breaking laws that don’t exist, will he have to pay for that too? If he wants freedom from being publicly dressed down and made to lick everyone’s boots, will he have to pay for that too?”
I don’t really know what you mean. If he uses a college paper in a way that the college deems inappropriate, he should expect to be punished and/or repremanded, yes. That’s life. If I decided to use staionery from my workplace to write abusive letters about Islam (or anything else) I’d be in trouble. I have to do that sort of thing on my own time. If he wants to be free from the repercussions, he can leave the college on principle. He has that choice. It’s the price he’d have to pay.
“And if you can’t see far enough to see that there is any such principle, then I have bad news for you: you’re blind.”
After all, no true Scotsman could see it any differntly.
John’s using the tough shit it’s not important argument. Point well made John. Any additions ?
Having re-read several of the press reports it seems that the College’s objections were post facto.
It is not that the student had been told ‘Don’t’ and defied the authorities but that the offence was invented to fit the situation.
Of course there is no absolute freedom of print, but the laws must be in place beforehand, not made up as you go along.
Besides which, the college itself sees it as a free speech issue, and the college itself is planning a meeting ‘to discuss the problem of maintaining free speech while avoiding offence.’ So there goes your whole claim, John; which is a tad sloppy since I quoted the bit about the meeting in my post.
You also ignored my point about the function, meaning, purpose of student newspapers. They are not comparable to employer-owned stationery; does that help?
OB, John’s comments have offended me. I assume you will take appropriate action. You wouldn’t want anyone getting upset.
John, please provide contact details. I need to send you a written statement to sign in front of a witness admitting your fault, apologizing, and promising not to do it again. You’ll also need to apologize to my face, otherwise I simply won’t believe that you are sincere. I’ll be putting the media in touch as well, and spreading the word locally.
I’d like everyone to understand how serious this is. John’s freedom of speech is an important right under the EU HR act and the UN-UDHR, but my freedom not to be offended is far more important.
Now if you’ll excuse me this banana won’t eat itself.
Love the last two posts they say it all!
Late again, I expect I’ll get the last word but nobody will ever read it. Ho hum.
I completely agree with dirigible’s implied point that there are a bunch of grievance mongers out there who dishonestly use their manufactured indignation to manipulate and intimidate others, but nonetheless dirigible, you really make my point for me. If OB found something I had posted to be deeply offensive she would indeed be entitled to demand that I apologise for it as a condition of continuing to post on her site (although she probably wouldn’t). And most here would agree that she was within her rights. That’s because most here would tend to share OB’s idea of what is offensive and what isn’t. The fact that the Clare authorities have a different view on that does not affect the principle.
I expect that will be the last of this (I have the the art of thread-killing) but I’ll toddle back later just in case (I have time because my banana is self-eating).
“dishonestly use their manufactured indignation to manipulate and intimidate others”
Quite ! Hope the banana that eats itself enjoyed itself ;-)
John M, you also have the art of not paying attention. You’ve ignored, among other things, the reasons I gave for saying the Clare authorities are in a different relation to the Clare paper, from the relation I am in to commenters on B&W. You’ve also ignored the fact that the Clare authorities themselves see a problem in reconciling free speech with avoiding being ‘offensive’.’ You’ve ignored pretty much everything I said, and just repeated what you said in the first place. That’s irritating. Not ‘offensive,’ mind you; irritating.
You’re also inaccurate in your original claim:
“OB, you claim then right (properly) to delete posts from this blog that you consider offensive, and to ban users that you consider offensive.”
No I don’t; I hate that word and I don’t use it (except reportingly).
“John M, you also have the art of not paying attention. You’ve ignored, among other things, the reasons I gave for saying the Clare authorities are in a different relation to the Clare paper, from the relation I am in to commenters on B&W. You’ve also ignored the fact that the Clare authorities themselves see a problem in reconciling free speech with avoiding being ‘offensive’.’ You’ve ignored pretty much everything I said, and just repeated what you said in the first place. That’s irritating. Not ‘offensive,’ mind you; irritating”
Well I can’t give this sort of thing the attention I’d like to, that’s true and so I do sort of pick and choose the bits to respond to when there are lots of points raised. That may be irritating but everybody seems to do it.
To ease your irritation, though, here are some responses. I don’t actually understand your point about the difference of relation between the Clare authorities and you and your commentators. I mean, I don’t quite see how it is material to the discussion. Of course your positions are not completely analogous, but they are close enough, it seems to me, in this case. You own the site/paper, you get to decide what sorts of things can be published on it. If I wanted to use your blog to make poor jokes or allegations of paedophilia against Darwin, you might decide not to let me. You might, but you might not,. if you didn’t, it wouldn’t boot me much to get agitated about repression of my right to free speech. I think you’d just tell me to naff off.
The fact that the Clare authorities have made a daft statement about free speech is neither here nor there. You can hardly appeal to their authority for one bit of the argument but deny it all legitimacy for another bit. Just because they say it has to do with freedom of speech, doesn’t mean that it does. As far as I can see their statement is just a bit of fudging which amounts to: ‘we want to give student journalists as much leeway as possible, but they have to mind their manners’. The same pertains on this site, I think.
I hope that is less irritating, but I’m not banking on it.
That’s much less irritating!
The Clare authorities are absurd, but I think their statement about free speech is relevant, because it indicates what they think the rules are supposed to be. The point is not their authority, but what they think they’re doing. The thing about college newspapers, as I understand it, is that they are part of the overall educational enterprise. I simply don’t stand in relation to commenters on this page of B&W, as Clare authorities stand to Clare students. I can, as you point out, be as arbitrary as I like (though it’s also true that people can point out that my reasons are idiotic and terrible, which is in fact what I’m saying about Clare), but I don’t think that’s true of college authorities; they’re really not supposed to be or expected to be as arbitrary as they like; the student newspaper is not considered simply a bit of property that they can order as they like; it’s more complicated than that.
The more basic point is that even if you were right that the two relations were identical, or nearly enough identical that your comparison made sense, it would still be the case that it’s possible and worthwhile to point out how idiotic their stated reasons are.
We should get a hold of the next copy of the publication, find something offensive in it, and then start a massive campaign to get it withdrawn on the basis it offends such and such a group. When we have extracted our apology, we can wait for the next edition and repeat the process.
Eventually Cambridge University will have to withdraw the idea of a student satirical magazine entirely.
Of course, this plan is somewhat undermined by the fact that there are a limited number of groups who can both claim offense and have the requisite track record of physical intimidation and violence to make this plan work. But let’s hope the next edition has a go at the Tamil Tigers, Baader Meinhof, Combat 18, Animal Liberation Front and the John Prescott Appreciation Society.
Oh now that sounds like fun.
If I was them I think I’d fill the next edition of the paper with completely lame jokes and an editorial note that they had lots of really funny ones, but none of them passed the censor.
Brilliant.
Or, an editorial note that they had lots of really funny ones, but they were all offensive.
How about what the South African did during the state of emergency,leave a blank page with just a small editorial comment explaining the blank space.