One Person’s Safe Space Is Another Person’s Trigger

The other day I engaged in a Facebook exchange with a good friend about the merits or demerits of this Judith Shulevitz op-ed at The Times. I argued it got things right. I added in my original FB post, and in my characteristically calm, cool, and collected style, 

Here’s the hard truth:

I knew I was being rude and hyperbolic, and I expected a reaction. My friend gave it to me, although (unlike someone else) he really did manage to remain calm, cool, and collected throughout the back-and-forth. His major points were (a) that the trend under review is overblown, (b) that most of what these students, including the students protesting Laura Kipnis, are asking for is politeness and respect, and (c) that campuses and classrooms are still open places and that most students and professors are not in danger of being unfairly reprimanded or ostracized for their expressed convictions, unless they cross a line that most of us would consider worthy of reprimand or ostracism. He also insisted that the Kipnis hullabaloo played out appropriately. Kipnis published something largely reasonable but at times silly or offensive, students at Northwestern made their complaints known (“don’t you like protest and activism?”, he asked), and the president of the University did the right thing by protecting the professor’s right to free speech. What follows is my response, which has been slightly edited.

***

Before I say anything else, I just want to make clear that I agree with you on one point: the media is sensationalizing the trend in question, much like it sensationalizes most trends, especially those concerning real or alleged liberal or left-wing excess. That said, I still think you’re underestimating the trend, both in the academy and the larger political culture. In addition to what the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and the Foundation for Individual Rights for Education (FIRE) pick up, there are plenty of incidents that are never reported, not to mention lesser or softer versions of censorship, or — and this is key — the thousands upon thousands of instances in which someone who has something worthwhile to say keeps their mouth shut for fear of being ostracized.

You have noted that Kipnis has nothing to fear because she is tenured. And what of all the assistant professors and adjuncts who enjoy no such protections? And what of the fact that such lack of protection is becoming the norm for the majority of faculty members? And what about the students? Do you really believe there is only a negligible number of smart, well-meaning students who are holding their tongues in such climates? Whose voices would likely contribute and enrich the force and rigor of the conversation, if only they too were encouraged in (rather than intimidated against) expressing their minority perspectives?

You are far too nuanced a thinker when it comes to cultural and ethnic differences to assume such a naive and entitled defense of enforced western upper-middle-class liberal or cultural left norms of speech. You are also underestimating the negative implications inhered in such a censorious approach to learning and discourse. There is its propensity to shut down otherwise open and healthy discussion; its likelihood of playing into the hands of those already wielding considerable power; its long history of ruining the lives of decent (if flawed or unlucky) human beings; its bad habit of infantilizing or patronizing traditionally oppressed groups, thereby reinforcing the very prejudices it is attempting to neutralize; its exclusivist function or effect (something I’ll flesh out below); and going along with that, its inclination to prize or obsess over the goodness or badness of individuals rather than any practical or structural programs, prescriptions and collective politics.

If you have the time, read through some of Slate‘s tales of “outrage” and watch all these dynamics play out, sometimes all at once. Suffice it to say, a good number of these cases do more harm than good to the reputation and effectiveness of critical public discourse, especially liberal or left discourse. I’d go so far as to suggest it amounts to a burgeoning disaster for the face and soul of the American left.

Before I move onto my most controversial but important point, I want to respond to your comment re activism and protest. As you know, I’m not only a huge fan of both, but I take part in both. It’s precisely my respect for activism and protest that makes me so frustrated with a brand of such that has little or nothing to do with pushing a practical, structural, or collective politics and almost everything to do with declaring one’s moral superiority over others (a kind of status jockeying among the elite set).

As someone who believes rape culture is a real thing that must be opposed with the force of a thousand suns, provided it encourages open and honest debate over censorship and ostracism, I’m wondering why the students at Northwestern chose to demand an official reprimand of Kipnis rather than use the opportunity to demand a thorough investigation of sexual attitudes and practices in the school’s Greek life. Or team up with Chicago’s anti-rape and battered women organizations and forge a genuine cross-class anti-misogyny or anti-rape coalition. How about team up with the broadly minority-dominated prison reform (even prison abolition) groups in the metro area and find real and constructive ways to push against prison rape in both female and male prisons?

You may argue this is already happening. Perhaps. But as someone who keeps an eye out for it, I’ll say you’re wrong. The majority of wealthy kids involved with these sorts of anti-Kipnis protests hardly venture beyond their opulent bubbles at all. Not to mention they’re terrified of poor and working-class people, especially black and brown poor and working-class people. While there is some overlap between anti-Kipnis-type protesters and the ones who get involved (in any sustained manner) with the variety of politics that exists beyond rich-kid zones, they are few and far between. It’s mostly the socialist and anarchist community organizers who do this sort of thing.

This brings me to my final point… I follow liberal and left Twitter, liberal and left Facebook, and liberal and left media in general on these issues. I can’t help wondering if what we’re seeing is another wave of upper-middle-class liberal moral reform and social control in the guise of progress. I can’t tell you how many of my working-class Marine friends who are now attending elite universities have confided in me their frustrations with being treated with condescension or contempt for failing to abide by the elitist language and conduct norms of their more refined counterparts.

As anyone who takes class seriously knows, each class or sub-class comes with its own cultural and linguistic habits, especially habits of mind. A chunk of the white working-class in the United States, both the men and the women, tend to be patriotic, Christian, patriarchal, etc. When it comes to sex and sexuality, it’s a mixed bag, but a good number speak about the subject openly and often “vulgarly” (as the upper-middle-class moral reformer would put it). This doesn’t mean working-class men are likely to treat women more vulgarly than their wealthier counterparts. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a frat house full of the sons and daughters of plutocrats and professionals knows this not to be the case. But it does mean that their blunt mode of communication, especially regarding questions of sexuality or gender, oftentimes clashes with the in-classroom tenor of elite school discussion. I’m not saying these students shouldn’t be challenged on these counts, but I am saying it should be done in a non-censorious fashion. I’m not at all convinced this is how it’s going down.

Such a dynamic is not limited to the white working class. I’m sure you remember that video where the well-to-do white woman walked around New York City for a number of hours and endured numerous cat calls from black and Hispanic men. Now, I find cat-calling awfully disrespectful and irritating (and sometimes threatening) and I’d like to see it go away. And I’m glad feminists are making it an issue. On the other hand, I found the initial reaction from privileged whites troubling. Basically you had rich white kids passing around a video where the white gentrifier was the victim and the black and Hispanic men were the overly-sexed potential rapists. If you’re familiar with the history of American racism, you know this is already an ugly shibboleth of which to be riffing off. Then we find out that white Wall Street banker types who were also catcalling were edited out, tellingly enough. Nonetheless, the majority were still men if color.

Why was this? The typical comfortable white liberal or campus lefty contingent didn’t bother to ask, just like they didn’t bother to be concerned with the racist and classist aspects of the video in general. It was ultimately up to more class or race-conscious leftists to contemplate this one. The most astute explanation came from Liliana Segura at The Intercept, in the process of exposing the woefully sheltered aspect of the anti-cat-calling campaign, specifically its demand that cat-calling be made an illegal offense (which would result in the criminalization of more poor and minority Americans). Bmaz from Empty Wheel offered another worthwhile summary of the elitist liberal response from The Times and others. Check out the comments for a fair representation of what was being blasted on high from entitled white kids at a campus near you.

Bottom line: I’d like to have a classroom and campus that encourages a conversation attuned to these intricacies and complications, not one in which those most likely to discuss them are also those most likely to remain silent for fear of retribution. I realize you’re inclined to say that this classroom and campus already exists. At many places and moments it does. But based on my own experience and reading, I find your overarching attitude surprisingly complacent, and on multiple levels of analysis.