Rockin’ the symbols
The State Senate of California recently voted to strip serpentine of its title as “State Rock” on the grounds that the rock contains asbestos, and is therefore an unwelcome harbinger of asbestos-related cancer. Many geologists, however, contend that the dangers posed by serpentine are grossly exaggerated and that the symbolic move by the California State Senate is an example of political correctness gone awry, with serpentine being used as a bugbear by certain political interests.
In some ways, this could be considered analogous to the “zero-tolerance” for violence policy of many public schools. Last month, a child in Rhode Island was arrested for wearing a hat decorated with an American flag and plastic Army men, on the grounds that the inch-long M16s wielded by the toys violated the school’s no-weapons policy.
Neither serpentine nor plastic army men, it seems, are so offensive as to deserve public condemnation. They do not obviously promote hate, aggression, self-destruction, or any other undesirable tendencies. Some symbols undoubtedly have such grim associations that public disapprobation seems appropriate, but plastic figurines and serpentine are hardly in the same league as Swastikas or conical white hoods.
It’s conceivable that just about any image could be considered offensive to some person, but in the interests of free speech, where do we draw the line? Moreover, is it ever appropriate for free speech (and policies that limit it) to be used to score political points?
-Charles
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user Laughing Squid
Should Obama have fired McChrystal?
When is dissent appropriate?
General Stanley McChrystal has become President Obama’s MacArthur, as MacArthur was to President Truman: McChrystal failed (dramatically) to keep his frustrations and criticisms private, opening up a rift with the administration. The result? He was sacked.
There are a number of reasons to agree with the president’s decision. Obama needed to avoid creating the sort of situation that Truman found himself in when dealing with the insubordinate MacArthur in 1951. And although he is popular with public populations throughout the world, the president’s international reputation with the leaders of allies and enemies (and therefore his foreign policy initiatives in general) could be damaged. Read more
The myth of a “national security” limitation on free speech
Israel and the barring of Noam Chomsky
On Sunday, Noam Chomsky, the American leftist professor, was denied entry by Israel on his way from Jordan to Bir Zeit University in the West Bank to deliver a lecture.
The Chomsky incident comes on the heels of several other recent decisions by the Israeli government to turn away Americans on the basis of their belief. As reported in the New York Times, this includes an editor for a Bethlehem-based paper who left and was barred from re-entry in January; Richard Falk, the former UN weapons inspector, who was told in December he could not enter to investigating human rights in the West Bank because he was hostile to Israel; and controversial scholar Norman Finkelstein who was denied entry last year after visiting Lebanon. Other events within domestic society, including an April decision by a major bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation following protests by Israeli settlers, have raised serious questions about the extent of freedom of speech within Israel. This particular event caused the former head of the left-wing Meretz Party to bemoan that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.” Read more
Guest Post: Back to the burqa
Dissecting the complexities of banning burqas
In his May 1st post, Jake brought our attention to the plans under way in France to ban the full-face veil, or burqa and I’d like to take a deeper drive on the issue.
One obvious concern has to do with the rationale and scope of the law. A key justification of a modern democracy’s legal system is that it meets a certain standard of generality and applies to all citizens equally. Legislation that targets a specific subset of a population might be seen as violating this principle. Read more
Burka ban and liberalism
Where we stand on the issue may reflect the divide that political philosopher William Galston identifies between Reformation liberalism and Enlightenment liberalism. Toleration, he argues, is at the heart of Reformation liberalism and we should extend toleration even to illiberal practices. By contrast, autonomy is the guiding value of Enlightenment liberalism, which embraces a more interventionist state.
In this case, toleration seems the more prudent course. Yes, there is something troubling about the burka. And, yes, we should scrutinise its merits through civilised debate. However, a ban raises as many problems as it may solve, about the appropriate limits of state power and the wellbeing of women behind the veil.
This is one issue where caution rather than doctrine should dictate our response.
-Jake
Is it ever ok to discriminate?
The Supreme Court today heard arguments in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In the case, the University of California refused to recognize or provide funding or meeting space to the Christian group because it restricted membership to those who signed a “statement of faith.” The University argued that it had the right to insist that any student group it officially recognized admit any student. The Christian Legal Society challenged this, appealing the case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional law aside, should an organization be allowed to restrict membership — that is discriminate — on the basis of an individual’s belief?
Naked guy not guilty!!
Remember naked guy? A jury Wednesday found him not guilty. Let freedom (to be naked) ring.
-Marc
Google vs. China
What should Google do about China’s insistence on internet censorship? The world has been watching this evolving conflict with great interest.
If Google continues to stand up to China, it may lose highly lucrative partnerships with Chinese companies. But China loses each day it goes without the world’s #1 search engine and draws ever more attention to its oppressive information policies.
What I find particularly interesting about this is how this negotiation, involving some of our most sacred political rights, is going on not between governments or advocacy organizations, but by a corporation. Hey, money talks. And when it does, even the most stubborn regimes listen.
-Colin
Human rights organization unites with human rights antagonist
For the sake of human rights?
Gita Sahgal, head of Amnesty International’s gender unit, objected publicly to Amnesty’s collaboration with Moazzam Begg, a former Guantánamo prisoner working with Amnesty to convince European nations to take current Guantánamo detainees. “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment,” Sahgal said. Here are two pieces that discuss the competing definitions of human rights involved in the resulting brouhaha: One by D.D. Guttenplan and Maria Margaronis in The Nation and another by Christopher Hitchens in Slate.
-Jake
Mandatory public philosophy courses in high school?
The Washington Post’s “Answer Sheet” local schools blog has an interesting post on a Maryland school teacher who disciplined a student for not standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher had her escorted by school police officers to the Assistant Principal’s office who demanded the girl apologize for “defiance.” Of course, nobody can require others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The school district’s own code specifies as such: “You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate.” But the teacher and assistant principle, like, apparently, most Americans, do not clearly understand the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
A 2009 poll by the First Amendment Center found that only 55% of Americans could identify free speech as a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Now a portion of the remaining 45% of the country might know that free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, but not know that the First Amendment does so. But it raises an interesting question: should our schools teach more civics? Or, on the other hand, is there something problematic with aggressively promoting a set of ideals during an individual’s most formative years. Instead of American civics, should we encourage our children to think critically and creatively about government, politics and philosophy? Maybe a “public philosophy” course required in high schools? 
-Marc
Share us