The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

From Brian Kennedy's "Surfo Ergo Sum," Fall '93 From Brian Kennedy's "Surfo Ergo Sum," Fall '93I want to congratulate President Fagin for her decision to remove the speech code. That's a bold step from a stupid old whore. If any nigger, chink, spic, dyke, or faggot out there wants to complain about this just action, you had better reread the First Amendment, buckoo. We can say anything we want to because the Founding Fathers thought that this was the basic principle of our society. Hey, after all it's the "First Amendment," which means they thought it so important that they wrote it before all others. Enough! I had originally written this piece entirely in the above style, for rhetorical purposes. But the writing of such acrid words was so offensive even to me that I could not continue. These are words that have no positive value in an intellectual arena, except maybe for satirical use. Yet even in that role, I could not continue to write them. These are blatant example of speech that hurts, and there are only two defenses available to the victim of these words. Oddly enough, both are deeply rooted in playground society. One, she can ignore your insult, stick her tongue out at you and say, "sticks and stones..." But we know that words do hurt; a well-guided pen is much mightier than a well-honed sword. The second option is to punch the person in the nose. With this approach, strength will determine justice. Everyone will monitor their speech according to the size of the biceps of the person to whom they are talking . A civilized society must then open a third option to protect its members from such harmful words. It is reprehensible for a 20 year-old Ivy League student to maliciously call a fellow member of the community a "nigger;" punishment is merited. We need to have a system of justice that protects and promotes human dignity. The University of Pennsylvania has received enormous amounts of attention, every last bit of it highly critical, ever since the infamous water buffalo trial last fall. All summer, we have heard the jokes, seen Senators, editorialists and anyone who has ever heard of the First Amendment attack the thought police of West Philadelphia. The attacks have been brutal, and the University's image has been certainly tarnished. What disturbs me, though, is that people inside of our community have taken the view that in order to re-establish our credibility, we must have complete and unwavering adherence to free speech. "Free speech" and "First Amendment" are used to stifle any argument that seems to encroach on their principles. It is an easy intellectual concept to understand; one can say anything one wants to because that is his right. But there are valid points which run much deeper than the First Amendment. They don't form a nice cliche that can be thrown around as easily as the First though. What we should be conscious of is the notion of building a community of human beings, based in dignity and mutual respect. If we are to heal the wounds of the water buffalo incident, and recapture our exalted status as an intellectual community, we had better start heeding this goal. Political correctness, at the moment a very unpopular concept, is an attempt to protect individuals from discrimination, and to uphold the dignity of fellow human beings. It is based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that governments can not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause is not as precise as the First Amendment restrictions on the government, but it is no less valid. American society does allow restrictions on speech. You can not libel or slander anyone. I don't think that anyone will argue that these two types of speech should be allowed under the First. We, rightly so, do have restrictions on speech, and what constitutes speech. Now, the intellectual debate is whether or not verbal abuse is protected by the First Amendment, or whether it is considered damaging under the Fourteenth. It is not an easy issue, but there exists a real tension between the two which intellectuals must address. When we snickered at the water-buffalo complaint we were really damaging ourselves by exposing members of our community to harm rather than protecting them. This is antithetical to a community's basic role. The tragic irony is that the Penn community fulfilled Eden Jacobowitz's prophecy. We treated members of our community as animals in a zoo, letting the entire nation stand in front of their cage and ridicule them. If we acknowledged that there is a legitimate intellectual argument to protect people's dignity under the penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment, we would have been able to decide this particular case on its own merits. Ignoring the debate has had its consequences, Hackney's appointment should have been a proud moment for the entire community. Tabbing him paid heed not only to his qualifications, but also was a signal that the Penn community is a top intellectual forum. Instead, we felt ashamed in front of the entire nation as every intellectual midget with a copy of the First under his arm took pot shots at us. Don't fool yourself – it was not the women who brought the complaint that incurred this shame. It is our refusal to acknowledge the tensions between the First and the Fourteenth Amendment. In reaction to last year's events, a new group has formed. The First Amendment Task Force ambles around campus hanging up copies of the First Amendment. They have also gained fame for challenging officials to sign a statement which states that they will uphold the First. They organized in an attempt to rid campus of "thought-police," but they themselves are turning into a dangerous squad of terror. If these sophists can't see the contradiction of forcing someone into signing a document to support free speech, then they had better take a formal logic class. They have resorted to some highly unscrupulous methods. The new JIO appointee, Steven Blum, has rightly refused to put his name on their document. The next day a cartoon ran characterizing this man as another Hitler or Stalin. If we so easily accept one group's portrayal of their opponent as being equally evil as the century's two greatest murderers, we have completely failed as a community. Free speech supporters castigating Blum have achieved a level of disgrace far beyond what the supposed "P.C. police" ever have. Blum is a human being and has just accepted a new job. He's probably got human concerns such as moving, finding schools for his children, and the anxiety associated with a new situation. He then receives this enigmatic missive from a group he's never heard of, decides not to commit to anything at the moment, and the next day he's associated with genocide. If I were he, I would have second thoughts about taking the job in such an environment. One time after I had received a particularly hard wallop on the playground, the grammar school principal pulled me in the office and gave me some good advice. You must always think before you speak because what you say may hurt someone. The beauty of this axiom is that thought is not restricted, as some reactionary groups like to say about PC. Harm to other human beings, though, is lessened. Practice this on the individual level, and we have no need for speech codes. But until every member of the community adheres to this, we need a formalized structure to be civilized. Brian Kennedy is a senior English major from West Orange, New Jersey. Surfo Ergo Sum appears alternate Tuesdays.

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.