« They “obviously wanted maximum propaganda value in the U.S.” | Home | Wheelock’s New Guard »
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Free Speech, the Wringer, and New York University
Dartblog has obtained a copy of an e-mail from NYU Spokesman John Beckman, reprinted in full in the extended, explaining the university’s almost—almost—comically oppressive view of the series of events that led to a censored Objectivist Club meeting, where the cartoons of Mohammad were not permitted to be shown. In point of fact, the black-pen censorship of one of America’s finest institutions is nothing more than a stain on its name and the First Amendment. The strange mental contortions that NYU has gone through to defend its policy of inhibiting the free discussion of world events astounds.
And the letter itself is a modern exemplar of some dark rhetorical tricks, the kind that have been used to justify all manner of limitation of expression. Beckman even goes so far as to say that, after the university forced the students into a no-choice ultimatum, when they ultimately decided to shroud the cartoons in order to be allowed to proceed with the meeting, “the students made this choice”. Of course, NYU had actually taken away the students’ choice, and had indeed limited free speech, because it offered its students the choice between a censored open meeting and a closed-away private meeting. Since the reason to discuss free speech issues at all is to do so in an open forum, the Objectivist Club took what it could get from a, truly, draconian university administration.
Also in the letter is a sentence that deserves an unhappy place in history books. NYU Spokesman John Beckman writes: “Frankly, it is not clear why a discussion of free speech and the Danish cartoons could not have taken place without the display of the cartoons.”
It isn’t?
From: John Beckman [john.beckman@nyu.edu]
To: … […]
Sent: 3/31/2006 6:27:37 AM
Subject: RE: censorship of cartoonsDear Mr. …—
I appreciate your writing to share your thoughts. However, I must disagree with your views on this matter and challenge your understanding of the facts.
The Objectivist Club, a recognized student organization, indicated a few days ago that it intended to host an event about free speech and the Danish cartoons. This was all well and fine. It emerged later that the event would include an actual display of the cartoons.
As awareness of the event spread around campus, Muslim organizations at NYU asked the University to intervene to prevent the display, indicating that they considered the cartoons grievously offensive.
Frankly, it is not clear why a discussion of free speech and the Danish cartoons could not have taken place without the display of the cartoons. Given the sensitivities of one segment of our community, that would have been the preferable course. However, the students of the Objectivist Club felt otherwise.
This decision was a balance between the serious concerns of one segment of our community, on the one hand, and NYU’s tradition of free speech and free exchange of ideas on the other. The University decided — and this seems to be, judging from your letter, a critical area of misunderstanding on your part — that the traditions of free speech must prevail. The University told both the Objectivist Club and its Muslim community that the display WOULD be allowed at the event.
Any reasonable person knows that the display of these cartoons has been accompanied by violence throughout the world. Every institution has a responsibility to ensure that an event held on its grounds goes off smoothly, safely, and without disruption. The inclusion of the cartoons in the event caused the University decide to limit the audience to members of the NYU community, a rather large group (NYU is America’s largest private university) including some 40,000 students and some 15,000 faculty, administrators, and staff.
On Wednesday afternoon, a few hours before the event, the student leadership of the club came to the University and indicated it had changed its mind: it would choose not to display the cartoons, and would like to be able to invite about 75 people to the event who were not members of the NYU community. The University agreed, but let’s be clear: the students made this choice, and they made it after the University had indicated to one and all that the event could go forward WITH the cartoons displayed.
Accordingly, I must disagree with your characterization that free speech was abridged on this campus. I am aware that there are outside groups that have sought to portray these circumstances differently, presumably for their own purposes, but these portrayals are not correct.
I hope this provides a better, clearer understanding of events.
— John Beckman
Posted on April 1, 2006 08:54 AM. Permalink 