A press conference just concluded concerning what is now a pending (and ridiculous) Office of Civil Rights investigation in Prof. Crystall’s e-mail that accused a student by name of uttering hate speech that was a “perfect example” of something a “white, heterosexual, christain male” would say.
Apparently the argument from supporters of Crystall is that the government’s message is you can criticize homosexuals but not heterosexuals. I say “supporters of Crystall” because she, as one would expect from someone so cowardly as to use e-mail to accuse one of her student of hate speech, didn’t bother to show, citing concern for future hate attacks upon her.
This tack is in line with Crystall’s remarks in The Chronicle of Higher Education online Monday, which reported she “noted that while the government could investigate her remarks as racist or sexist, it would not investigate the student’s as homophobic.”
This approach is so dumb it sorely tempts me to defend the government here, but I won’t. There is no reason for the government to get involved. The university and Crystall’s own department have already made it “crystal” clear that they won’t tolerate Crystall’s actions. Free speech won ? or so we thought.
Chancellor James Moeser’s statement on the matter crystallizes my view, so I’ll just quote it:
“Some would argue that some ideas are so hurtful or so harmful that we should not permit them to be expressed. But any effort to declare a particular point of view off limits is, in my view, not consistent with our values as a totally free and open institution. The better approach is to encourage speech on all matters, with all points of view.”
This isn’t Crystall’s approach. She wants the government to make the student “feel marked or threatened or vulnerable” for daring to address her classroom question, “Why do heterosexual men feel threatened by homosexuals?,” with his opinion. It wasn’t hate speech; she just didn’t like it, so she’d like him to shut up, but she doesn’t have the gumption to do it herself. Coward.
