Say what you mean, don't say it mean.

A friend of mine brought an interesting story to my attention today. It seems a professor of religion at the University of Illinois was fired over comments regarding the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality being immoral, after a student complained on behalf of an anonymous friend. The comments were labeled as 'hate speech'.

The first reaction many people had to my friend's post was along the lines of 'Erm.. you're taking a course on Catholicism, why are you surprised at being taught as Catholic doctrine??' However, I asked.. was the professor in question teaching doctrine, or stating his own opinion? As it turns out according to the article above, he did state that this was an opinion he shared.

What we have here, is a political hot potato (at least, for the University of Illinois). A situation vague enough that it can be easily manipulated by a number of factions.. the uber-PC folks who use terms like 'hate speech' to quell opinions that don't match their own, and the ultra-right-wing conservatives who use the concept of free speech to perpetuate hate and ignorance.

Either way, it doesn't do anything constructive for the case of critical thinking.

The way I see it, the difference between 'personal opinion' and 'hate speech' is this:

Opinion: "I don't agree with or like {marginalized group of people}"
Hate Speech: "I don't agree with or like {marginalized group of people}. They should be wiped out/imprisoned/beat up/poked with sticks/otherwise tormented and degraded"

The funny thing is, in both the liberal and conservative media I have seen on this story, there's a lack of any direct quote or context. Was this dude going off on a diatribe about 'the gays' and fire and brimstone in the middle of a lecture? Was perhaps the complainant a gay student who felt that this may be held against him? Did the prof know this? Then yeah, I would say disciplinary action would be in order (even if he didn't know).

However, suppose he was teaching the Catholic view (as is his prerogative in a class on Catholicism - durr) and a student inquired "What do you think, sir? Do you agree?" As a professor in a post-secondary institution, should he be bound by political correctness to keep his mouth shut? or would he be compelled to be open with his students by giving his honest opinion? Should a professor be maligned and disciplined for giving his honest opinion (even if others, this author included, may find them to be ignorant and archaic?)

No, that's silly, of course not. Right?

Let's play a little devils advocate here. What if this was a history professor.. or specifically a 20th century history professor.. even more specifically, a 20th Century European History professor, teaching on WWII and the Holocaust. The professor states that to this day, some people still do not believe that the Holocaust really occurred. A student asks 'Do you agree with this belief?' and the professor honestly states that no, he does NOT believe the Holocaust occurred.

THIS professor is now a holocaust denier, and guilty of hate crimes under our laws*. Kind of muddies the waters there, doesn't it?

So this begs the question.. in an post-secondary setting, should professors have complete academic freedom in their lectures? It's not so much a black and white answer.

On one hand, no student should feel maligned in a lecture or that their religion/race/gender/orientation etc may be held against them in regards to their academic performance.

On the other hand, academic professors have been known to express controversial opinions and arguments on a variety of topics. One of the major tenets of academia is the ability to think critically, and form cohesive arguments. How do you learn to think and argue critically when you agree with everything you're been told? In my first year of schooling, I'd come out of some of my classes almost in tears in anger and confusion, because I was forced to face ideas that I was less-than-comfortable with. However, as time rolled on, these were the classes that taught me to really look at all sides of an argument, until I either A) was able to rebut with a cohesive argument or B) was more open to views that I hadn't considered before.

In one article on the subject the Alliance Defense Fund, which is looking into the situation stated:

"A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views"

Do you agree?

*Yes, I suck. Holocaust Denial is not covered under Canadian Hate Speech laws. Oops.