Freedom, Justice, and Racism Courts

Freedom, Justice, And Racism

Courts have often supported laws and policies that prohibit the public expression of certain obscene words, but do you think that it would ever be justified to prohibit the expression of certain ideas or beliefs? (I have heard that in Germany, Hitler's Mein Kampf cannot be published or sold. Do you approve of that policy?)

In the United States, which is built upon the cornerstone of free speech, it would never be appropriate to prohibit the expression of certain ideas and beliefs. In fact, that type of speech would usually fall under the rubrics of either political speech or religious speech, which get the most protection under the Supreme Court's interpretations of the First Amendment. The freedom of speech is so closely associated with the American identity, that challenging that notion would literally challenge the bedrock of the nation. However, the United States has a different history than Germany. In Germany, hate speech led to the Holocaust, an event that continues to define Germany for much of the world, and for many Germans. Moreover, it is important to realize that the Holocaust was only the last in a series of anti-Semitic legal and social actions that had occurred in Germany. Germany has to consider that history when looking at what legislation is appropriate for their country and for their countrymen. When one considers that unique past, it is very difficult to argue that Germans should allow the publishing or sale of Mein Kampf.

2. Mill believes that even if we know a doctrine is wrong, it would not be beneficial for society to suppress that doctrine. What argument does he give to justify this point?

It is important to understand that Mill's argument that society should not suppress doctrines that are commonly believed to be wrong is not based on tolerance. Instead of tolerance, Mill wants debate. He thinks that the introduction of conflict into discourse is the means of creating faster progress in all sectors of society. Mill wants to avoid social stagnation, and believes that the competition that results naturally from the unfettered spread of ideas is the best way to avoid such stagnation.

3. In most accredited universities in the United States, the Darwinian explanation of how species originated is accepted and the explanation given in the Book of Genesis is not accepted. Do you think this policy is right? Would Mill?

I actually disagree with the premise as you have stated it in your question. In most accredited universities, the Darwinian explanation of the species is accepted in science classes. However, the explanation in the Book of Genesis, or other religious texts, might be perfectly acceptable in religious studies or mythology classes. What explanation is accepted greatly depends upon the context. I think it is appropriate for a university to be able to say that they want its science graduates to leave with certain baseline knowledge about scientific facts as they are currently understood by the scientific community. I do not know if Mill would agree that this policy is correct. He would want the community to debate the issue, but having a university limit acceptance of an answer in a specific context is not the same thing as stifling speech. After all, a professor who gave students a prompt to write about Romeo and Juliet could hardly be expected to accept an answer detailing black holes. As long as there was still a venue for people to assert creationism as their scientific belief, I do not think that Mill would require universities to accept that answer; doing so would infringe upon the freedoms of the entire university, and would harm it in the academic community.

4. Do you think public burning of the American flag should be protected under the First Amendment?

I absolutely believe that public burning of the American flag should be protected under the First Amendment. What could be a more powerful example of symbolic political speech than the burning of a country's flag? Anyone who questions how potent a statement a burning flag can be need only look at how upset people get about the idea of burning the flag. It sends a very visceral message, and, because that message is political, it is exactly the type of speech that should be protected. That does not mean that a person who supports the right to burn the flag supports the burning of the flag. As an American, I think the idea of someone desecrating a flag, and, by extension, desecrating America, would be a very disturbing one. However, political speech is going to deserve to at least a portion of the audience.

5. Most laws prevent employers from refusing to hire people because of their race, but employers can take race into account in more subtle ways. Have you ever encountered any serious forms of discrimination that were not illegal?

I have not personally encountered any serious forms of discrimination that were not illegal. I can imagine how that discrimination might occur. For example, I have heard stories of people having their resumes ignored because they have ethnic-sounding names. It would be difficult to prove discrimination in such a case, but that discrimination would still be illegal. I could imagine an employer looking at information on a resume or job application in order to glean information about race and using that information to help narrow down a decision without ever seeing an applicant's race. Neighborhood, schools attended, current address, volunteer history, and job history can all provide insight into an applicant's racial background. It is not illegal for an employer to consider those when looking at an applicant.

6. Decades after the integration of U.S. schools, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that "race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools." However, the decision was a controversial one, not likely to end with this decision as opponents of the decision argue that it represents a possible move toward resegregation of schools. Divided court rejects school diversity plans.

It has been well over a century since African-Americans were promised equal protection under the law, and, one thing that has become abundantly clear is that there is still a tremendous amount of overt racism. However, there is also a tremendous amount of covert racism. Furthermore, because wealth travels in generations and America is only two generations removed from the Civil Rights movement, there continues to be a tremendous economic disparity between whites and non-whites. However, de-facto segregation is not necessarily the same as legally enforced segregation. As long as resources are appropriately allocated between schools that a school's population is mostly minority does not carry the same negative consequences as when inferior resources are allocated to schools. The problem is going to be to ensure that schools receive equal funding.