Constitutional Law

'Cultural' Stigmatization For Thee But Not For Me

What about campus culture makes it so unique that social shaming in this context poses such a unique threat?

By  
on

mob of angry villagers with torches and pitchforks.jpgYou may not have noticed, but I have taken a break from my writing here at Above the Law. The reasons are long and important: I recently moved, started a new job, and welcomed my first child into the world. Needless to say, my available time to write has been limited. But every now and again I come across something so irritating I can’t keep my mouth shut or my fingers off the keyboard. Others may choose a more rigorous or perhaps more inspired method of creativity, but I credit sheer annoyance for some of my best work.

The annoyance I am going to write about here is directed at this op-ed recently published by The New York Times by a University of Virginia senior named Emma Camp. The op-ed is titled “I Came to College Eager to Debate. I found Self-Censorship Instead.” As the title reflects, Camp’s thesis is that because “[t]he consequences for saying something outside the norm [on college campuses] can be steep” some, like herself, choose not to express their unpopular opinions. What exactly are these consequences? In Camp’s own words although she was “eager to debate” and was open to hear those who disagreed with her this response she got was apparently too much:

During a feminist theory class in my sophomore year, I said that non-Indian women can criticize suttee, a historical practice of ritual suicide by Indian widows. The idea seems acceptable for academic discussion, but to many of my classmates, it was objectionable. The room felt tense. I saw people shift in their seats. Someone got angry, and then everyone seemed to get angry. After the professor tried to move the discussion along, I still felt uneasy. I became a little less likely to speak up again and a little less trusting of my own thoughts.

The first thing to notice about Camp’s story is she is being incredibly vague about what social “consequences” she faced for her expression. She uses terms like “objectionable,” “tense,” and “angry” to describe the reactions of those who disagreed with her, and such terms can be taken any number of ways. I would think if matters became physically dangerous that would have been said or she would have described the situation very differently, so I am left with the assumption that Camp is saying people angrily voiced their disapproval of her opinion. If so, then what Camp is describing is literally an “open” environment where she was allowed to state an unpopular view without threat of violence, and others were “free” to vigorously, dare I say even inarticulately, disagree with her. What I fail to understand is how Camp can ever expect any open society not to react to unpopular ideas/views/opinions by taking objection or expressing “anger” vocally. Or for that matter, what magical time in human history does she think we have left behind where the expression of unpopular opinions was not met with vocal or social hostility?

What Camp seems to be asking for is a college environment where expressing her unpopular ideas comes free from social hostility or consequences, a permanent safe space if you will. And there are some who agree with her. Conservative writer David French in The Atlantic praises Camp’s op-ed and claims the problem she identifies is “very real.” Indeed, to French, Camp is identifying a significant “cultural problem.” What exactly is the problem? According to French it’s that “students live in fear of social shaming and intimidation.”

Again, I do not know how Camp or French can reasonably expect any “open” environment to be free of “social shaming” or social hostility. But I also do not understand what about campus culture makes it so unique that social shaming in this context poses such a unique threat. Especially for evangelical conservatives like French, who are perfectly fine with a “culture” of social shaming everywhere that is off campus.

For example, how do you think French views a “culture” where LGBT Americans live with social fear of “shaming and intimidation”? How do you think French sees the culture of a religious organization, funded by taxpayer dollars to serve any state-qualified member of public in facilitating adoptions, after it announces in the press they will not serve qualified same-sex couples? Does French believe such public denouncements of same-sex couples who are not harming anyone with their relationship are somehow not an example of “social shaming and intimidation”? Spoiler Alert: When it comes to his own evangelical “culture” of social shaming and consequences French writes in a very different tune. Suddenly his culture’s right to stigmatize represents not as a threat but rather a necessary component of a robust First Amendment and a healthy pluralistic society.

Sponsored

Ultimately, what Camp and French have in common is a shared standard of hypocrisy that angered me enough to write this piece. Both are perfectly fine with using social shaming on those they disagree with, but hypocritically object to the use of the same or similar social tactics when directed at their own beliefs. In her op-ed, Camp used one of the largest and most respected media outlets in the world to try to bring shame upon a campus culture she feels caused her unease and discomfort. For his part, French finds social shaming a feature of a healthy pluralistic society when done by evangelicals, but inexplicably and hypocritically views social shaming as a threat to the First Amendment only within the campus context, where not so coincidentally his conservative views are out of social favor.

I hope you’ll join me in taking *GASP* objection and expressing a justified anger in such blatant hypocrisy.

tyler broker headshotTyler Broker is a First Amendment scholar and attorney licensed to practice in New York and Alaska.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,