The University of Miami Law School faces controversy over how to deal with racist comments against white students – objections to double standards at the university. Anti-white commentary is becoming increasingly common in the media, including a recent column by Elie Mystal writer for Above the Law and the nation’s judicial correspondent who opposed and sought to defeat “white society” To keep “white free”. Living in the Pandemic. Miami Law School has remained silent in the face of complaints filed against student Jordan Gary after publicly posting her comments on Instagram.
Gary publicly stated that she “hate[s] Whites ”and noted that“ people always tell me that hate is such a strong word. And yes, but those are some strong ass stories I’ve heard. And until I can figure out how to balance that in my head and heart, I hate white people. “According to their LinkedIn page, Gary is the President of the Black Law Students Association and the Editor for the Review of Race & Social Justice Law at the University.
Conservative sites asked Miami’s dean for comment, but there was no public statement even after the complaints were filed.
The issue of anti-white commentary raises an issue so sensitive that few universities are willing to discuss it openly. As many on this blog won’t surprise, my default setting remains free speech, especially comments made on social media outside of a school. This does not mean that schools should not denounce intolerant or racist language. However, these comments are linked to a number of personal, social, and political issues for students like Gary. I would rather discuss these views than try to punish their expression.
The free speech community is always concerned not only with the punishment of viewpoints, but also with any differentiated or biased punishment. There’s no question that a white Miami student would say, “I hate [black] People “would be immediately and publicly denounced – and probably immediately suspended. If there is a difference between anti-white and anti-black comments it should be clarified and discussed.
In posting the comments, Gary was clearly encouraging a public debate – a debate that could have some positive elements in getting different groups and races to reflect on racial beliefs and the protection of free speech.
Obviously, Gary isn’t the only one who expresses such views. Mystal’s column shows the same broad characterization of whites. He writes:
“In the past year, of course, I still had to interact with white people on Zoom, or see them on TV, or worry about whether they would manage to re-elect a white supremacist president. Your cops don’t chase me when I’m driving my neighborhood; Your problems don’t bother me (or threaten me) with just trying to do a few purchases.
… White people have not improved; I was just able to limit my exposure to them. “
In particular, Mystal was one of the loudest voices denouncing Nicholas Sandmann and continued to slam the wrongly accused students even after reports of a racist incident were exposed. In the coverage of the first report, Mystal condemned Sandmann for wearing his “racist” [MAGA] Hut ”and protested against Sandmann conducting interviews to defend himself. Mystal derided how “this 17-year-old boy is defending George Zimmerman for being denied access to a person of color”. Aside from the fact that Sandmann did not deny “access to a person of color,” Mystal and Patrice compared this student to a man accused of murdering an unarmed African American child and even attacked his efforts to use his name as a to be clarified The media continued to refer to him as a racist.
Again, Sandmann was completely innocent of the racism allegations and the Washington Post reached an agreement with him.
However, Mystal’s recent rant still shows that racist statements can reflect social, political and other experiences. Mystal admits that “not most or even a lot of my interactions with whites are ‘bad’. “However, he has deep-seated feelings about how whites interact with minorities, or what he sees as a shared sense of white privilege. Many of these speakers say that their hostility is based on experiences of racism by whites.
This brings us back to the controversy in Miami and how schools should deal with such disputes. One answer is that the approach should be the same regardless of whether the statements are aimed at one race or the other. If there is to be zero tolerance for racist statements, this must be applied consistently. If not, these schools owe clarity to their students and faculty about where the line is drawn and why some racist comments are treated differently. The silence does not bear this burden. We need to discuss whether otherwise racist statements can be differentiated and whether such differentiation represents a tolerance for criticism based on the race of others at a school. The question also arises as to how such comprehensive generalities apply to other races or other categories such as gender or sexual orientation. Today the question even arises as to whether one would like to be classified as racist or intolerant. As a result, you just keep silent and freedom of speech concerns are ignored.
Again, I tend to oppose regulation of language outside of schools for the sake of freedom of speech. More importantly, I would prefer to speak freely and collectively about such deep-seated views of the students. I realize that I have a traditional (and perhaps outdated) view of free speech. However, I still believe that the solution to bad language is more language, not language regulation.