In Which I Complain About Email

There was a lot of talk of “an expected level of professionalism” at tonight’s SBA candidates’ forum, and that brought my blood to a boil, because I believe “expected level of professionalism” to be a code for an unconscionable restriction of student speech, in the form of email policies and harassment policies, on VLS’ campus.

For starters, I’d like to inform everyone that much of my examples are borrowed from “Fire’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus.” A full copy of which can be downloaded for free at: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5063.html. It will be cited as “Guide.”

1. Freedom of Speech and the private campus.

Our speech at VLS is not protected by the Constitution; our speech is protected by principles of contract law buttressed by principles of free speech found in First Amendment litigation. Courts look to two sources for the agreements that contractually bind a student and an educational institution; Student Handbooks and Admission Materials. The theory is that if a student is not informed of potential limits on speech in recruiting materials, restricting that student’s speech once they enroll at the institution constitutes fraud. Student Handbooks are looked at to determine if there is actual policy in place to restrict speech.

The VLS Student Handbook, at page 90, in the email policy contains this amazing line: “While Vermont Law School rejects any form of censorship, behavior that constitutes misconduct may result in sanctions.” The School, in the space of 17 letters and one comma, directly contradicts itself. I ask you, is not sanctioning behavior that takes place via a medium of communication (i.e. email) the definition of censorship? In fact this policy constitutes the most despicable of all censorship, prior restraint, because, “as long as the policy exists, the threat of enforcement remains real and can influence how people speak and act.” (Guide 137) Also, are not the constant reminders that our emails may become public on our bar applications another threat that goes against our interest in freely speaking our minds?”


2. Email as a professional tool

The main argument I get from my detractors is that the email is a professional tool, and a level of professionalism should be enforced. I, surprisingly, agree completely with this concept. Because I agree with this concept, I support the removal of item #11 of the authorized uses for the email system found on page 90 of the handbook: “Participation in topical forum.” The administration cannot, having established that the school “rejects censorship in any form,” give us a medium to participate in discussion, yet simultaneously establish limits on HOW we are allowed to participate. That is against all for which a decent, liberal society stands.

3. The quest for truth or the quest for an uneasy, ignorant calm?

Our institution’s definition of Harassment is found on page 74 of the handbook.

“Unlawful harassment may include, but is not limited to, the following actions if, as isolated acts or as part of a pattern, they have the prohibited purpose or effect on employment or educational performance or environment: jokes, derogatory expressions, or comments; the display of graphics, cartoons, or objects; sending or forwarding electronic mail messages; and other conduct offensive to a reasonable person possessing a particular protected characteristic”

While the intention of this policy is well-meaning, it represents an incredibly vague and impermissible proscription of speech. Sometimes, important things must be said that are offensive to a reasonable person of any characteristic. If we curb our ability to speak on issues because we may offend someone, we destroy our ability to examine the darkest parts of our society, where often the roots of our social ills can be found.

“The Guide” explains much better than I can (at pg 135.)

“If prejudice, bigotry, or ignorance exists, it is far better to know how people actually think, to discuss such things, and to reply appropriately than to force such things underground, where they only fester and worsen. If you are hated by someone, it is better (and safer) to know who hates you and why. It is counterproductive to force educable human beings to disguise their true beliefs and feelings. It is counterproductive to create a climate in which students are afraid to speak frankly and freely with each other. [Students should] challenge the administration on the university’s motivation for passing these speech codes. Do such restrictions of liberty serve the educational development of students and the search for truth, or do they merely give administrators the appearance of peace and quiet at the expense of real progress and candor?”

I contend VLS has traded its quest for truth for a quest for social harmony to be achieved at all costs.

4. Satire, Parody, and Discussion

My preferred mode of sparking debate and angering the populace is satire and parody. Why, you ask? Because it is much more efficient, great effect can be made with two sentences or a crude drawing, and I don’t like to type. Satire and parody are target number one of regulations that seek to curb “unseemly” debate. Again, I’ll let “The Guide” make a point that I am too lazy to make (at pg. 99):

“PARODY AND SATIRE: INCREASINGLY UNDER ATTACK
Parody and satire are facing difficult times at American universities, where many administrators have either lost their sense of humor or substituted a stifling and misguided paternalism that makes many forms of humor impossible. This is tragic, because parody—a crucial form of dissent and social criticism—is an invaluable component of life in a free society. Parody, as free speech, enjoys sweeping constitutional protections. Again, students are well advised to read the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1987), and to be prepared to use it defensively if accused by a campus administration of being guilty of creating a “hostile educational environment” by means of a mean-spirited, slashing parody seemingly intended to inflict emotional distress on its target. As the Supreme Court has noted, forms of speech such as biting parody and spiteful political cartoons are time-honored ways of communicating disapproval. Indeed, parody and satire succeed in their mission only when they inflict distress.”

So, if you are against parody and satire, then you would agree with Jerry Falwell in the above cited case. Censorship makes strange bedfellows, don’t you think?

And so ends my rant on free speech at VLS, feel free to contact me, and please, be as vulgar and hateful as you wish, I’m a big boy (so, seriously, I’m fat) and I can take it.