Last Friday, Vanderbilt senior Katie Des Prez wrote a column criticizing FIRE’s criticism of certain Vanderbilt policies. In response, Samantha Harris, director of speech code research at FIRE, posted a defense on FIRE’s blog The Torch.
Des Prez believes that changing the policies that FIRE criticizes would-be “protecting sexual abusers.” In response, Harris wrote “FIRE does not believe, as Des Prez falsely suggests we do, that there is a ‘right to sexual harassment’ — we believe that Vanderbilt’s (sexual harassment) brochure has defined sexual harassment so broadly as to include a great deal of non-harassing and in fact socially significant, speech and expression.”
This specific brochure lists “gender harassment” as an example of sexual harassment but states that sexist remarks or denigrating jokes about gender are violations of the policy. In regard, Harris offers the court case “DeJohn v. Temple University” which found that that the code, which prohibited (among other things) “generalized sexist remarks and behavior,” violated the First Amendment because students discussing gender issues like the role of women in the military would be potentially subject to punishment under the terms of the code.
Criticizing FIRE’s criticisms of the Community Creed, Des Prez writes that “(t)he concern that civility impedes the open exchange of ideas is baseless.” In regard, Harris offers the example of federal magistrate judge Wayne Brazil. Brazil “ordered San Francisco State University to stop enforcing the California State University system’s civility policy because it unconstitutionally impeded the open exchange of ideas.” In this case, Brazil stated that “mandating civility could deprive speakers of the tools they most need to connect emotionally with their audience, to move their audience to share their passion” and doing also prohibits “the kind of communication that it is necessary to use to convey the full emotional power with which a speaker embraces her ideas or the intensity and richness of the feelings that attach her to her cause.”
Des Prez also misunderstood the difference between the current prohibition on “lewd” and “lascivious” expression and a narrower prohibition on “obscene” expression. Harris argues, “‘Obscenity’ has a clear legal definition that includes only very explicit sexual materials that lack political, social or artistic value. ‘Lewd’ and ‘lascivious’ have no such legal definitions and thus can be defined subjectively to include a wide variety of sexual expression that may indeed have political, social or artistic value, and that may be far less sexually explicit than legally obscene materials.”
Harris also offers the example of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues, which has been performed on campus many times in the past. Ensler even spoke on Vanderbilt’s campus in 2008. Her play includes a monologue entitled “Reclaiming Cunt” such terms might be subjectively labeled as lewd or lascivious. Some might even “want advertisements for the performance (to) be restricted” Harris argues.
Harris also uses the example of a discussion being hosted by the Women’s Center in April, entitled “Let’s Get It On: Sex at Vandy,” where students are invited to discuss “sizzling gender-related topics.” Harris highlights the ambiguous difference between “sizzling” and “lascivious” and proposes that perhaps the university should “get out of the business of making arbitrary judgments about sexual expression that falls short of the legal definition of obscenity.”
Harris finishes by suggesting that restrictions on free expression inhibit the recruitment of talented faculty and students, and that “FIRE will continue to argue vigorously for their repeal and for the free speech rights of Vanderbilt students.”
Kenny Tan
Class of 2014
School of Engineering
