Free Speech on Campus Pt 2: Is Violence Ever OK?

Copyright: 123RF Stock Photo

[Click here to skip the series intro and go straight to the column regarding violence]

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Is Violence Ever OK?

Yes. Violence is sometimes OK. A person completely committed to nonviolence is impressive regardless of other ideology, because pure nonviolence means there is no right to self-defense. A person committed to nonviolence must be willing to be killed for that principle.  One has to be honest with oneself as to whether that is the case, and it certainly isn't for me.

For the rest of us, we agree that violence is sometimes appropriate, and we have to decide precisely where our line for committing violence is. Conservatives' general support of stand-your-ground laws and gun ownership suggest that defense of home and family is a bright line for them. A necessary question then follows: at what point does it become OK to resist the threat to your home and family? Is it not until they cross the threshold of the home? Is it OK when they are on the corner announcing that they're coming for all the people on the block with a particular last name and hair color that happens to describe you?

A few years ago, Harvard Law School hosted a panel discussing whether violence is ever justified for social justice, using South Africa and Nelson Mandela as a jumping-off point. These very smart people could not give an unqualified no. In particular:

"My answer to this question of when violence is justified is based on asking a lot more context-specific questions: Who’s using the violence? What is the political and social change they’re seeking to achieve? How and why was the decision made to opt for violence? What kind of violence is being used? Who’s being targeted? What other options did they rule out? What are the peripheral effects of the violence?” -Susan Farbstein, HLS assistant clinical professor and co-director of the International Human Rights Clinic

I am completely opposed to white supremacists, because they are trying to kill me. I said this on the thread that inspired this series, and my challenger asked for clarification. The clarification is that I'm not white, therefore I'm as at risk of being targeted for the hateful outbursts of white supremacists as any other person of color. The fact that I can pass for white reduces my probability of being targeted; the fact that I am not interested in passing for white offsets that. A reaction of "I didn't mean YOU" underscores the point.

I had many Facebook arguments with a Trump-supporting cousin of mine, who has now blocked me. One argument involved the president's apparent support of white supremacists after the Charlottesville tragedy. I concluded my critique of her position with the question, "You know you're not white, right?" A third party asked what that was supposed to mean, and I pointed out that my cousin is at least half as Hispana/Mexicana as I am. Our common ancestors were immigrants from Spain to what is now New Mexico in the 1500s. The difference between her mother/my parents and the "illegal" that President Hateful wants to deport is how far south we were when the relevant land was ceded from Mexico to the USA in 1848. We say in Spanish: "No crucímos la frontera; la frontera nos crució (We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us)".

My cousin's friend asserted that expecting someone to have a particular political position because of their race is the height of racism. And I understand how, in the abstract, that seems to be true. However we're talking about a movement that thinks that people of color are less than human, and that it's perfectly OK to deny the humanity of a person of color for their own purposes. I believe it's apparent that a person who is the target of such a movement ought not to support it. How arrogant would I be to assume I'm somehow "different" enough to be spared by people full of hate who are targeting everyone else like me?

I freely acknowledge that I am not willing to be on the front lines of the social justice battle that is currently being fought. I'm too old and too comfortable to make the kind of sacrifice that is required to be a full-time activist. I so appreciate the people who are willing to be on the front lines, and part of my appreciation of them is that I defer to their judgment of what is warranted and when. Nothing has happened that I feel the need to condemn. Furthermore, I'm not willing to say I would never use violence as part of a political statement. I will just be grateful that I have not yet had to do so.