The Shaviro clause
Remember Wayne State professor of English Steven Shapiro? Who said –
Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.
The president of Wayne State is not charmed.
Dear campus community,
This morning, I was made aware of a social media post by a Wayne State University professor in our Department of English.
The post stated that rather than “shouting down” those with whom we disagree, one would be justified to commit murder to silence them. We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal.
We have referred this to law enforcement agencies for further review and investigation. Pending their review, we have suspended the professor with pay, effective immediately.
To be precise, he didn’t say “one would be justified to” – he said “I think it is far more admirable to.” They sound similar but there is a real difference. “One would be justified” is a good deal closer to incitement than “I think it is far more admirable to.” I’m sure Shaviro has every intention of saying that; I’m sure he was very deliberate in starting with the disclaimer and then wording it the way he did. Just saying you think it’s more admirable is…well, it’s very sly. He may well get away with it.
It’s also a nice (i.e. evil) touch to limit it to “violating federal and state criminal codes,” as opposed to confronting the horror of killing a human being. Murder isn’t wrong or bad, he hints, but criminal codes forbid it.
And all this because he hates women who know men are not women.
I suspect that this falls short of criminality for much the same reason as you, but I hope to hell he is getting cold sweats at the prospect of charges. Even if no charges are laid, I suspect this will cause him to reign in the rhetoric.
That’s what popehat thinks, too. Shaviro is quite sly. He’s able to broadcast his virtue and immoral intent juuuuuust within the limits of the letter of the law.
It’s funny: I never see gender critical women calling for murders or death or killing people, even those who call for exactly that for them.
Clearly don’t have the correct setting dialed into your Sooper Seekrit Trans Decoder Ring.
Legal nuance aside, it’s obvious what Shaviro is advocating for, namely violence. Talk about stochastic terrorism, this is an obvious example of it. Given what recently happened in New Zealand and yesterday in Nashville, it’s just making things worse.
I don’t think pre-emptive murder is justified to avoid misgendering, but then how do I know? I’m an atheist and without religion to guide me have no way to ascertain the ethical path.
I just ran across this. It seems rather related to the whole suicidal trans thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_8cfVpXbo
I doubt he’s broken any criminal laws, but I do hope Wayne State can fire Shaviro. Not for his views about gender identity but for his admiration for murder.
Given president M. Roy Wilson’s admirably unambiguous response to that disgusting post, I assume he wouldn’t mind sacking the guy. But it may be difficult, especially if Shaviro has tenure. Do all professors have tenure?
Lady M,
Tenure isn’t the key issue.
Wayne State is a public university and is bound by the First Amendment. It generally can’t punish people, even its employees, for their legally protected speech, whether they’re tenured or not. Popehat has a post up with a more detailed explanation.
There are some wrinkles when you’re talking about government employees; see the second edit to the Popehat post and the discussion of the Pickering test. But that turns on some very specific facts, not the general question of whether the government employer is morally appalled by the employee’s speech. My rough impression here is that the professor is in the clear legally speaking. It might be a different matter if the context was that a specific speaker was coming to Wayne State — still wouldn’t qualify as a true threat for criminal law purposes but maybe makes the termination issue a closer call.
@Mike Haubrich #5
I’m an atheist and without religion to guide me have no way to ascertain the ethical path.
Please tell me that’s sarcasm.
It is, of course.
Popehat’s post is a good read. This paragraph especially:
Actually the grammar (and hence the logic) of what he has Shaviro say is wonky. “it’s morally admirable that you kill that guy in there” doesn’t work. It should be either “it would be morally admirable for you to kill that guy in there” or “If you kill that guy in there it will be morally admirable.” Still a good read though.
As for not being able to fire someone because of the First Amendment? I know that is the legal stance, but trust me, schools have ways of firing instructors when they don’t like their views. I’ve been threatened several times, but I keep my nose clean, and so far I haven’t stepped any more outside the lines than simply teaching my students about the negative impacts of agriculture (in an agricultural state, horror of horrors!) But I have seen quite a number of situations where people are terminated for something else, not infrequently something minor that a lot of faculty do, but that is probably a legitimate fireable offense. It’s just if they fired everyone who did it, they wouldn’t have anyone left, in many cases I imagine even themselves.
I don’t know how it works at other schools, but it works at ours. I haven’t seen anyone ever litigate. The only litigation I’ve seen was doomed to fail, but so far, this faculty member is the only person they despise that is still there. (I’m not actually despised at this point, just mostly ignored. They seem to assume I’m harmless now. Since I’m retiring soon, they may be right.)
And it’s not just schools. I have seen similar things at other government institutions. They know the rules, and they know what they can’t fire you for. But First Amendment rights are precarious, because of self-censorship. Most of us know they have ways. Have you ever sent an email not work related? Commented on B&W during work hours? Out you go!
iknklast,
I don’t doubt it.
Actually proving the reason for a firing can be tricky, especially if those in charge are clever and patient about it. In a situation like this one, any firing of Shaviro in the near future is going to look pretextual, and no doubt there are a ton of emails and texts floating around where administrators discuss how much they want to can him. But in the case of someone who has more gradually pissed off the powers that be, they can easily “build a record” that would provide a plausible defense.