On February 17, at 5.30 pm members of the CEU community gathered in the auditorium of the University for the event “Discussion on Hate Speech' and the Limits of Free Speech in a University Community”. It was an important event with a good turn out organized by the Provost for Academic Affairs and HRSI, and supported by the SU, the RAP, CMCS and the Debate Club among others.
Two presenters, Erzsebet Barat from the Gender Studies Department and Peter Molnar from the Center for Media and Communications Studies, showed two different approaches to the limits of free speech. It was a valuable discussion where paradigms were contrasted: a wonderful act of deliberative democracy where the disposition to listen and talk reigned. This event showed how the CEU community organizes and has the mechanisms to embody a debate around the topics that considers being relevant. The ninety minutes that people were talking and discussing synthesized a system of institutional engineering design to favor the existence of an open society within the University.
In terms of the audience and the angle of the speakers, it could be said that two perspectives were presented: there was an argument and a counterargument. Peter Molnar stressed the virtues of free speech and its potential to neutralize hate speech. Erzsebet Barat on the other hand highlighted how narratives and discourses are embedded within structures of power. Both presenters were right in their own way. They somehow illustrated the natural tensions and contradictions between liberal principles, as equality and freedom. The discussion moved along these lines and it was possible to identify supporters of both points of views among the audience.
Peter Molnar made reference to the code of ethics, which provides applicable mechanism and regulations for the solution of controversies of the kind, including general provisions, the establishment of grievance and disciplinary committees, jurisdictions, proceedings, definitions and sanctions. For example, article 27 provides an understanding of general misconducts, including those related with discrimination and sexual harassment. Peter's approach highlighted the self-correcting virtue that language and freedom of expression can have in an open society as CEU.
On the other side, Erzsebet Barat stressed the importance of considering free speech in relation to structures of dominance, and the way mainstream narratives exclude other non-hegemonic worldviews. This perspective seemed closer to a post-structuralist or constructivist approach. Although most of the examples in the event moved around gender and sexual orientations, these approaches are relevant and can be applied in other agendas. For example, along the lines of a post-colonialist thinking, authors like Rolando Vazquez (2011) have elaborated thoughts about the epistemic violence of Modernity. Seen in terms of global capitalism, people as Hardt and Negri (let alone David Harvey) have provided an understanding on how the current world economic system works as an Empire. Entities like the World Social Forum in Brazil and its tireless claim that “another world is possible” could also be mentioned.
With regard to the audience of the event, while only few pronounced themselves for favoring free speech above other considerations, a relatively important number seemed to have a stand emphasizing the oppressive side of language as well as the need to set limits to free speech in order to avoid hate speech. This latter group pointed out to the need of taking the context into account: over and over, they illustrated how discrimination and racism are embedded in language structures, and how positive discrimination that supports historically excluded groups and protects minorities from hate speech is necessary. And I agree: in those societies or communities where excluded, marginalized or subjugated groups exist, proper measures should be taken.
However, I consider that one of the main virtues of CEU is that it provides an equal floor for all those that are part of it. To the best of my understanding (or my Life-World, as Habermas would call it), CEU is the closest thing to an ideal polity that exists. One of the beauties of CEU is that, no matter where you come from, how you look or what you like, you are entitled to the same rights, duties and safeguards that the other CEU “citizens” do. Equality is a constitutive element of CEU as a living organism. The spirit of CEU reflects a will that moves not only up and down but also in horizontal and diagonal directions.
Of course, theoretically, any status quo is subject of improvement, and empirically this may also be the case of CEU. No question about that.Furthermore, I would never deny the existence of discursive narratives overlapping with domination structures and the need of supporting disadvantaged groups in order to provide room for equality and fair play (CEU itself clearly acknowledges this when implements actions as the Roma Access Program). However, I reject the assumption that there are groups of individuals that, in their capacity as CEU members, are marginalized or subject to domination via CEU's organic structure, as some participants in the event seemed to suggest.
Maybe I am wrong. But, in any case, the beauty of this matter resides in all of us being part of a community that guarantees to all of its members the possibility of expressing and making a point to the best of their capacities via open and free speech. Therefore, rather than demanding that certain approaches as sarcasm or irony are forbidden when touching upon certain topics, or that “the others’” threaten-less voices are curtailed for contributing to theoretical structures of subjugation that do not apply in the context of the CEU polity, we should embrace the opportunity of being citizens to the fullest, and test and improve our skills as agents of change. If anybody has a case on how to make CEU better, it should go for it. Or at least, that has been the reasoning of the founders and participants in this newspaper, and here we are.
Rodrigo Avila Barreiro
Editor in Chief
MEXICO
Public Policy Alumnus (2010)
0 comments:
Post a Comment