Recently, Vanderbilt’s student rights have been scrutinized by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
According to an article by Samantha Harris on FIRE’s website, Vanderbilt student rights suffer because: one, our Community Creed asks us to be civil and caring; and two, our sexual harassment policy is too far-reaching. FIRE’s argument is supposedly not based on the desire to actually be uncivil or a sexual offender but rather on a concern for the protection of these rights on principle. Besides wondering why any person would need their rights to sexual harassment and uncivil behavior protected other than to exercise them, I’d like to explain why the “on principle” part of FIRE’s argument fails.
Harris argues that based on the Community Creed, Vanderbilt students should expect the same rights as public university students. Mostly, we do enjoy these rights, and any limitations placed on us as students at a private institution are available for our examination and, if we wish, for our rejection. This simply means not staying at Vanderbilt if we have qualms with the creed.
And though Harris’ article attempts to make the creed look self-contradicting, it is actually consistent. Harris cites two passages: first, “(Vanderbilt’s) members, both faculty and students, are entitled to exercise the rights of citizens and are subject to the responsibilities of citizens”; second, “The University is committed to providing opportunities for the free and open expression of ideas both inside and outside the classroom. It will safeguard the undisturbed, orderly expression of diverse views and opinions as well as the opportunity for their careful examination.” Harris emphasizes only the first half of each statement, ignoring that we are as subject to the responsibilities of citizenship, which within a university should include respect for other people’s free expression, as to its privileges. The university also pledges to protect the “orderly expression of diverse views,” which would entail civility to accompany argument.
The concern that civility impedes the open exchange of ideas is baseless. This is not a policy that only a draconian institution would maintain. Meaningful discourse is hardly ever uncivil, as incivility is easy grounds for dismissing opinions as too emotionally charged to be serious. In any case, there are clear examples of when people have been uncivil. Take, for example, the personal attacks made on Frannie Boyle for her free expression in The Hustler.
As for the sexual harassment policy, it is beyond me why someone’s right to sexual harassment should be more protected than victims’ rights to be free from abuse, and Harris’ argument for its protection is still unsubstantiated. She asserts that Vanderbilt should only uphold standards for sexually inappropriate behavior as it is “legally defined.” Again, we are actually not subject to these only these standards as a private university. For the most part, however, these are the standards that we stick to. Our policy forbids the use of “lewd or lascivious conduct or expression” as opposed to “obscene” expression — however, lewd and obscene are almost exact synonyms, and both of these words imply exactly the definition of obscenity: something without scientific or artistic merit.
Furthermore, Vanderbilt’s definition of sexual harassment as “unwanted, unsolicited, or undesired attention of a sexual nature” and Harris’s preferred definition — offensive behavior that “can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities and benefits provided by the school” — are not antagonistic. We live in our educational environment, and undesired sexual attention can make us feel unprotected here. This would necessarily deprive us of the benefits and opportunities that are afforded to us. FIRE’s desire to advocate student rights would be better directed at preventing sexual abuse than protecting sexual abusers.
— Katie Des Prez is a senior in the College of Arts of Science. She can be reached at .
