Jordan River Forum

Speech double standard It was not surprising to see an editorial by Vice President for Student Development and Diversity Charlie Nelms in Tuesday's IDS. What was surprising, however, was the content. Nelms says that Eric Rasmusen's continued publication of his Web log on IU's server "is consistent with what it means to live in a democratic society." That is to say, freedom of speech is a right afforded everyone in our country --Dr. Rasmusen included. Personally, I support free speech in all cases. I think that free speech is the ultimate answer to hate speech. However, Nelms' comment struck me as quite odd, since Nelms compared this incident to "the Horowitz ad and other similar events." Let's examine Nelms' opinion of the Horowitz ad (from his April 19, 2001, editorial in the IDS): "I can hear the freedom of expression and freedom of the press arguments now! Did we not learn anything from Mahatma, Martin and Nelson? These three, and many others, sought to teach us that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Did the IDS seek to examine the ethics and the morality of Horowitz's claims, or did the debate focus primarily on whether he has a right to be heard? Did the IDS look closely, or at all, at the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of Horowitz's arguments, or was the IDS more concerned with not wanting to be accused of political correctness by rejecting the ad?" And let's examine Nelms' thoughts on the editorial cartoon that the IDS ran in February of this year (from his Feb. 11 editorial): "I can hear the refrain now, 'this is a free speech issue.' Since when did free speech give one person or newspaper the right to denigrate an entire race of people?" It seems as if Monday's staff editorial was absolutely correct to wonder if the reaction would have been different if Rasmusen's Web log had been about race, and not sexuality. It seems like Nelms is not very interested in freedom of speech when it comes to racial stereotypes, yet he seems quite willing to listen to the refrains about "free speech" when he talks about sexuality-based stereotypes. Thus, I am forced to ask: Why the double standard? Why does Nelms think that racial stereotypes should be banned from public discourse but not homosexual stereotypes? Does Nelms value diversity of race more than diversity of sexuality? I don't know, but I do know that I am looking forward to hearing an explanation from our vice president of "diversity" on why he thinks that those who would hold contrary opinions about sexuality should be free to do so, while those who would hold contrary opinions about race should not. Nicholas Blesch
Senior More free speech As a GLBT student, I should be offended at the statements made on (professor Eric Rasmusen's) Web site. However, I think we should note that he is exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and the University should not censure that in any way. The only censure should be by students and faculty voicing their opinions. How did it make you feel when people where being called un-American because they didn't agree with the president on the war in Iraq? Well, now Dr. Rasmusen disagrees with the liberal majority here on campus and we have to respect his views without hindering his rights. It is our duty to ensure that his Web page is maintained in the name of free speech, whether we agree with his views or not. We cannot be selective in defending our civil rights if we are to maintain them. Mike Lewis
Senior