Anyone ever wondering about the value of a Claremont McKenna education need only walk to Pomona during their so-called great debates. Whereas a debate by definition usually involves two people of character with an honest disagreement over the resolution before them, PSU has taken a habit of bringing speakers who agree with each other. (Remember government-run health care versus government-run health care?)
This wouldn't be bad in and of itself -- so long as people knew what they were getting -- but each time the PSU organizers promise that the debate will be well, "great," and all the while, disappointing us every step of the way.
The latest self-styled "conversation" took place in Pomona's Edwards Ballroom this past Thursday night between Nadine Strossen, formerly of the ACLU, and Mari Matsuda, a self-described critical race theorist. (Curiously, I'm reminded of something Kissinger once said of the Iran-Iraq war, " A pity they both can't lose.")
This debate was replete with the usual leftisms. As now seems policy, the moderator, true to form, mentioned the "likely" racial origins of the song, "Hail, Pomona, Hail" -- despite a total lack of evidence affirming it. Matters got worse when a student question in the Q & A said that students felt "harassed" and worried about getting home safely after PSU brought Jacob G. Hornberger, a libertarian, and Marvin Stewart of the Minute Men. (Seriously? In Claremont? Who would have attacked you? It's not like you are Republican or anything. You know, the people who have real property crime committed against them?)
Both speakers were members of the A.C.L.U. and made me remember why I have so long ago given up hope on such an organization. (To be fair, Ms. Strossen did have several good points when she argued in defense of the Brandeis professor who explained what the term "wetback" meant -- only to be punished by the administration. But if you cannot defend the right of a teacher to explain something, you really have no claim to be a "civil libertarian.")
The debate started curiously enough, with both sides citing their own ethnic histories -- Ms. Matsuda is an American of Japanese ancestry, while Ms. Strossen is an American of Jewish ancestry. Whenever someone makes an identity based argument in an issue of freedom of speech, they mislabel the entire debate. We aren't arguing for First Amendment rights because they are nice or even good, but because they are rights. A right, after all, is something that is accessible to all people at all times, irrespective of station. Any deprivation of that right must meet strict scrutiny, not the whims and fancies of other people's like or dislike.
Ms. Matsuda argued that whenever someone calls her a "J-A-P," she gets offended because that word has such "history". Presumably people should know that history and so they should defer to her and not use it. Otherwise, the word can be taken as "assault." For the sake of Ms. Matsuda's argument, we will put aside for the moment that the term "Jap" means different things in different cultures, something sure to befuddle multiculturalists who like to have their cake and eat it too. Indeed, even in the United States among Japanese-Americans, opinions are mixed about the word, "Jap." As with any good trial lawyer, she favors civil penalties for hurtful language. Such censorship, she argues, would be good because some people "misuse" their speech rights and the "collective conversation becomes too noisy" when we adhere to individual notions of free speech. She said that words can hurt people's "psyche."
Ms. Strossen to her shame conceded Ms. Matsuda's point that we need hate crime laws. This policy translates into the mistaken belief that some citizens are more equal than others and undermines the very notion of law itself. She believes that if you beat someone a Jew or an Italian and call them a kike or a Dago you ought to be punished more. Essentially, context matters and calling someone a bad name doesn't mean you should be punished more.
But true civil libertarians recognize this act of government to unravel intent as something that is totally out of the power of the sovereign. To think that you can concedes too much to an all-knowing leader who can know if we are good or not in our hearts. The state isn't Santa Claus or God. (For those looking for an entertaining attack on hate crimes, watch this clip from South Park.)
Finally, I thought it interesting that both Ms. Strossen and Ms. Matsuda said that you ought not racially profile someone. Now I happen to think that racial profiling is a perfectly legitimate practice and here's the essence of my argument, but imagine if I didn't condone it.
How do I keep in mind the history of the woman or man before me who may or may not be of a certain racial group without racially profiling? Namely, how could one that Ms. Matsuda would be offended by calling her a Jap without her as ethnically Japanese? And more importantly, should citizens be in the business of constantly thinking what the ethnicities of their fellow citizens are before they make an argument or appeal? I would wager not.
