Conversation cops step in to school students

[The Shadow]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

November 19, 2008 at 3:56 AM EST

Your friend's new fuchsia fedora might be hideous. But don't call it gay, or you might get a language lesson from the conversation cops.

Students at Queen's University who sprinkle their dialogue with an assortment of "homo" or "retarded" could find out the hard way that not everyone finds their remarks acceptable.

The Kingston university has hired student facilitators to step in when they overhear homophobic slurs, remarks bashing women or racially tinged insults, along with an array of other language that could be deemed offensive.

That means tête-à-têtes in the residence hallways may no longer be just between friends.

"If people are having a conversation with offensive content and they're doing it loud enough for a third person to hear it ... it's not private," said Jason Laker, dean of student affairs at Queen's.

"If you're doing anything that's interfering with what other people need to be doing, that's not cool."

The initiative, believed to be the first of its kind in Canada, is part of a broader program begun at the school this fall to foster diversity and encourage students to think about their beliefs.

But the move is sparking fresh debate over the line between politically correct behaviour and freedom of expression. Some students fear the university's program borders on oppressive.

You really need to read the whole article to get the gist of how far the university is prepared to go to enforce this and how serious they are. While I have no use for any kind of slurs or insults that denigrate someone's race, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity or the like, this whole thing is just intolerable to me and a shining example of how political correctness is being carried to more ridiculous extremes. What bothers me even more is that it probably won't meet too much open resistance; rather people will just privately complain about it but won't make any serious attempt to challenge it.

[smileyeagle1021]

doesn't Canada have similar free speech laws as the USA?

Now, I find quite a bit of conversations I've overheard to be offensive... but I'm mature enough to stop listening if it offends me rather than go all conversation police on people. People can be idiots for all I care as long as they aren't doing anything to physically harm me or those I care about I'm fine with it.

[The Shadow]

doesn't Canada have similar free speech laws as the USA?

No not quite.

Under our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, we're guaranteed certain rights and on of those is freedom of expression. But that same charter also comes with something called a "notwithstanding clause" also known as the "we were just kidding" clause. Basically it stipulates these rights can have "reasonable limits" placed on them if the limits are "demonstrably (clearly) justified in a free and democratic society"

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/230.aspx

To date, this has only been used to supress the speech and writing of Neo-Nazis and other holocaust deniers, but the criminal code definition of what constitutes "hate speech" means it could conceivably be far more reaching than that.

Now, I find quite a bit of conversations I've overheard to be offensive... but I'm mature enough to stop listening if it offends me rather than go all conversation police on people. People can be idiots for all I care as long as they aren't doing anything to physically harm me or those I care about I'm fine with it.

I'm pretty much the same way. If someone says something I find intolerant or offensive, I either ignore them or challenge them based on facts and logic. This method has usually worked for me. Still that doesn't seem to be the general Canadian way though where lately it seems that people have genuinely started to belive they should never see, hear or read anything that insults their sensibilities. In other words, they seem think they have some sort of god-given right never to be offended.

[anriana]

I didn't see any consequences listed in the article other than "a student facilitator will come and talk to you about why what you said could be offensive." Why exactly is that bad?

I know the US has ruled that freedom of speech can be limited on school property. I'm assuming the Canadian clause could be applied the same way.

I'm confused by the "avoiding a birthday party due to faith-based reasons." What does that mean? Telling Jehovah's Witnesses their religion is offensive?

[Flyndaran]

I didn't see any consequences listed in the article other than "a student facilitator will come and talk to you about why what you said could be offensive." Why exactly is that bad?
...

Confrontations by authority figures is a form of intimidation. I don't like it. I find it offensive. How do I get them to confront each other?

I MAY have been slightly understanding of this policy if it were in a grade or even high school, but a university? They are adults that should be afforded all civil liberties without having to worry about nannies confronting them about their "naughty" words.

[Greenday]

I didn't see any consequences listed in the article other than "a student facilitator will come and talk to you about why what you said could be offensive." Why exactly is that bad?

To put it frankly, I've got better shit to do. Stay in your room for the rest of your life if you are so worried about being offended by a passing conversation.

[Boozy]

doesn't Canada have similar free speech laws as the USA?

Of course we do. But how do you figure this is a free speech issue?

If you say "fag" loud enough for someone else to hear it, that other person has every right to comment on it. Free speech only protects you from criminal prosecution or government interference. It does not protect you from someone calling you out.

I still don't like the whole idea, mostly for the reasons Flyndaran described. But this is far from a constitutional issue.

[Sylvia727]

I wonder what the consequence is if a "conversation cop" corrects someone's language, and the students replies with "whatever." Because that would be my response if an authority figure challenged my language. I respond well to my peers, because they come at in a friendly, helpful way. In fact, when I was 16, a friend of mine told me that "faggot" was not just a synonym for "gay man". I was horrified and embarrassed, and I never made that mistake again. I suppose if my science teacher had happened to overhear me using that word, and had taken me aside to explain, I would have had the same reaction. But to be corrected (in front of one's friends?) by someone whose job it is to fix everyone's language cannot be friendly or helpful, but only confrontational. The second part of their responsibilities, hosting talks and events, seems a helpful, friendly, and non-confrontational way to address the same problem. Why not stop there? Why go the extra mile to aggravate people and turn them off your message?

[Greenday]

At my school, the way our dorms work is you get write-ups for doing stupid stuff. If it is something small like a quiet hours violation, nothing happens (though my mom did get a letter at home, which she found hilarious). If it's something like being caught with alcohol, they'll make you do either community service or take a couple classes. Enough write-ups and they can kick you out and ban you from school housing.

[crazylegs]

If I walked down the halls of a school yelling "n1gger" I'm sure people would want to explain to me (in no simple terms) how it is offensive, if I am using any other derogatory term I would also expect to be pulled up on it.

I fail to see why a school upkeeping it's standards is an issue, they have a moral responsibility to ensure that the students they teach act in a responsible manner within the school. By bringing to their attention that certain words are offensive they are merely doing this.

Freedom of speech is a very noble thing, however it is not a shield to hide behind with which to offend and disgust others.

[The Shadow]

I fail to see why a school upkeeping it's standards is an issue, they have a moral responsibility to ensure that the students they teach act in a responsible manner within the school.

1. Because most university students, in the first place, don't need this. In our post-modern culture, anyone with even a fraction of a brain knows that racial or homophobic slurs are offensive, and have the smarts not to use them in mixed company. In fact many other people (like myself) don't even use them in private either because they know it reflects poorly on their character and don't want others to think they're "one of those".

2. The article mentions that a conversation loud enough to be overheard can't be considered private. This could very easily lead to these speech police eavesdropping and monitoring people's semi-private conversations. The potential for them to abuse their authority is too much.

3. The enforcement goes beyond slurs and offensive names. They're going to call student on even the most innocuous phrases or expressions that might be deemed offensive to someone else, even if no one specifically complains.

4. Universities are places which have all sorts of panels and disciplinary commissions whose purpose is hear about such allegations, and when necessary punish them. Even though these monitors don't have the authority to punish them (just merely "talk to them about it"), these other bodies do.

Freedom of speech is a very noble thing, however it is not a shield to hide behind with which to offend and disgust others.

And what do you do when every hyper-sensitive soul complains about every little thing they personally find offensive, or some third-party busybody intervenes to reprimand them for saying something that might, maybe, possibly offend someone, somewhere at sometime?

Human beings have certain inalienable rights. However the right never to be offended or disgusted is not one of them.

[Boozy]

Freedom of speech is a very noble thing, however it is not a shield to hide behind with which to offend and disgust others.

Actually, free speech does allow one to offend and disgust others.

But this is not a free speech issue.

Queen's University is not the government, the students hired to intervene are not cops, and the campus is not Crown (public) property.

[Slytovhand]

so, Boozy, it is private property, and as such, has the right to make whatever 'conditions of entry' it deems fit - and can 'enforce' them how it chooses (within legal limitations). How many ppl on CS have hung up or banned ppl from shops for using offensive language? Doesn't this fall into the same category? And, as private property, I imagine they have the right to force people to leave the property or hit them with trespass if they fail to comply.

On the actual issue, I'm sort of with Crazy with this. Using some words will get you automatically banned, why not others?

By the same token.. yes, anyone can get offended by almost anything these days - is there a line somewhere? And who is to draw it?

[AdminAssistant]

Is it a private university? If it is, well, that can do pretty much whatever they like. Some of these schools have really tough conduct requirements - no drinking, no drugs, no living with your boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.

Public university - well, that's a slightly different ball of wax. But if some student is talking with his friend in the dorm about how much he likes to beat up 'f*****s' and 'n*****s' and other students can hear it, then that student should be told to shut the hell up.

[Sylvia727]

But if some student is talking with his friend in the dorm about how much he likes to beat up 'f*****s' and 'n*****s' and other students can hear it, then that student should be told to shut the hell up.

Ah, he should be arrested. Even if he's just making it up. I know I would feel threatened if I overheard a guy bragging about how he attacks certain people, even if I wasn't one of the categories he likes to attack.

But it's a big step from "that's so gay" to "I injure faggots".