Free Speech

 

J

ust as it often happens, one bright, sunny day two professors met halfway across the green at a prestigious, great American university.

“Hi, Frank.”

“Hi, John.”

“Um, assumptions 1 through 47, 56, 92, and 190 through 197, with the usual exceptions for 13b and 17g, with our regular qualifications on 194.”

“So stipulated, with the addition of 73c and 73d, and with liberty to interpret generalizations according to the Interuniversity Treaty of Discourse, Section 24, as amended.”

“Agreed. So, how’s it going?”

“Fine, fine (in accordance with Characterization Rule 6 of the Informal Interaction Protocol, Chapter 19, Section 102.43f, paragraph 37). How about you?”

“Great (as understood as a hyperbolic colloquialism per the Findings of the Ad Hoc Committee on Exaggeratory Declamation). Um, nice weather we’re having, huh? (as understood by Ruling 384c, Paragraph 5, of the Committee to Investigate Hegemonic Small Talk.)”

“I concur (as an interpersonal exchange agreeability response as defined by the Conversational Harmony Ruling of the Committee to Investigate Hurtful Speech, and without warranty or claim of correspondence to the actual atmospheric conditions, together with the right of no-fault recantation at any point, under either necessity or arbitrary decision, without a reason requirement).”

Now, it so happened that an ignorant freshman had been sitting on one of those uncomfortable concrete benches easily within hearing range of this interaction, and at this point in the discussion, curiosity got the better of his reserve, and he interrupted them.

“Excuse me, sirs, but what are you talking about?”

Both professors gave a start and looked at the young student with surprise and not a little fear and hostility.

“Well, well, apparent person,” said the professor named Frank, gruffly, “you can’t just break into a conversation like that.”

“Oh, I understand,” said the youth. “Hello. My name is Paul.”

“Knowing your name is not the issue,” said Professor Frank. We cannot talk to you because you haven’t been stipulated.”

“Oh, I’m officially registered for classes,” offered the young man, gamely.

“No, no, no,” said Professor Frank. Unless you agree in advance to the rules of discourse, we could get in trouble.”

“How?”

“Well, you might misinterpret what we say and get us hauled before the Committee. We could lose our jobs!” Professor Frank had begun to perspire nervously.

“The Committee?”

“Yes, yes. You know. The Committee to Investigate Politically Incorrect, Harassing, Hateful, Harmful, Hurtful, Horrible, Offensive, Microaggressive, Hegemonic, Non-Consensual, Non-Liberating, Renegade, Extremist, Heteronormative, Sexist, Unfair, Uncompassionate, Objectionable Speech, Writing, Gestures, and Other Communication.”

“You realize, Frank,” said the professor named John, in a sardonic tone, “that you are even now committing unstipulated discourse with an undergraduate. I should report you, in compliance with Directive 67.”

“No! Please!” cried Professor Frank, with choking emotion in his voice and a look of terror burned into his very red face. “I have not said anything actionable.”

“But maybe you were thinking it,” said Professor John. “And besides, you gave no trigger warnings before you used the words rules, trouble, misinterpret, and lose our jobs. You’ll recall that Professor Jenks was fired just last fall for failing to use a trigger warning before telling a student he had ‘misinterpreted the poem.’”

“Don’t compare me to him,” pleaded Professor Frank. “He deserved to be fired for trying to impose his reactionary, monoexegetic ideology on students—as if there is such a thing as a ‘misinterpretation.’ Such a vicious totalizing narrative has no place at the university.”

“I’m afraid I must report you,” said Professor John, glumly. “After all, you did say, ‘No, no, no,’ which is specifically declared abusive hate speech under the Criticism Elimination Directive Specifying Kind and Tolerant Speech, as Amended.”

Just as Professor Frank was at the point of getting on his knees to beg, the young man said, “This is nuts. I’m out of here.” But as he turned to leave, Professor John grabbed him by the arm.

“What did you say?” he demanded angrily.

“I said this whole thing is crazy, so I’m leaving.”

“No, you’re not,” said Professor John, hotly. “You’ve just committed a second degree communication felony. In fact, two of them.”

“Huh? What are you talking about?”

Instead of answering the young man, Professor John turned to Professor Frank and said, “Call a Communications Counselor.” But Frank was already talking to the Department of Communications Interaction Enforcement Speech Services (SS for short), and it wasn’t more than thirty seconds before two university cars arrived at high speed, bearing prominent signs with SS on them. As the cars braked hard to a stop, two uniformed men jumped out of each car. All four were pointing video cameras.

“Preemptive Protocol 1A,” said one of the officers, “and privileged rules under the Communications Interaction Enforcement Regulations. I’m Officer Jones, Speech Services. What is your narrative?” Two officers pointed their video cameras at the two professors and two at the student.

“This person here,” said Professor John, motioning toward the student, “used hate speech against us and accused us of being intellectually alternatively labeled. Twice.”

“Spell the words used,” said Officer Jones.

Professor John complied, and then added, “And we aren’t within 1000 feet of the Free Speech With Exceptions Bench in the  Quad.”

“This kind of intolerant and judgmental language is not protected by the Free Speech concessions,” said Officer Jones. “Those are both Category A words. The first is Prohibited Word number 1867 and the second is Prohibited Word number 4147. This abusive and smutty language is not protected anywhere on campus.”

It wasn’t long before the student was taken away in handcuffs and shackles to the Department of Communications Interaction Enforcement building, where he was placed in a holding cell on the eighth floor until his hearing.

At the trial before the Committee, the student’s appointed defense representative said, “If it please the court. While there is certainly no excuse at all for this person’s use of scurrilous, hateful, demeaning, unfair speech, it is incumbent on me to note, with emphasis, that said offender did say, ‘This is crazy,’ rather than ‘You are crazy.’ Had such a case obtained, I would never have agreed to defend him.”

The six members of the prosecution team all nodded their heads in agreement. The judge said, “Of course, in that case, he would have been immediately expelled from the university.” The judge also noted that the typical penalty included being prohibited for life from attending any other campus of the state’s universities, or any of the universities in the country that were members of the Consortium for Fair and Open Communications.

However, since this was his first offense, and since the student was a freshman in his first week on campus, and had not yet taken Multicultural Community 101, Sociology 1A: Maintaining a Safe Environment, or the three-day language sensitivity orientation training, and since the judge on his case was known for softness and leniency, the student’s only penalty was to write a 10,000-word apology to each of the two professors, a 25,000-word essay on the evils of hate speech, 80 hours of communications sensitivity training, 240 hours of community service (helping the librarians mark out offensive words from books, journals, and magazines), and a permanent notice on his transcript that he had been convicted of four counts (two words spoken to two people) of hateful, bigoted, hurtful, offensive scurrility.

“We want the university to be a free and open place where students—and faculty—can feel safe to learn and communicate without fear of insult or offense,” concluded the judge at the end of a lengthy, pointed, biting condemnation of the student’s behavior.

“I don’t understand this at all,” said one faculty member in the audience. “Why does this judge always let them off so easy?”

 

'

 

 

™ Laws can be good or bad, and judgments just or unjust. Strive for a good and just society.

 

Questions About the Story

1. When you read this story, what makes you think that the story is not to be taken as a literal account of what actually goes on at many universities?

2. What about the story suggests that it is warning of a dystopian future?

 

Literary Enhancement

Satire is a writing mode that criticizes a target by adopting a pose or attitude that pretends to be neutral or even supportive of the target, but by using exaggeration, irony, understatement, and other techniques, causes the target to appear ridiculous and laughable.

In the story, after reading the sentence imposed on the student, the last paragraph is clearly ironic.

Describe other satiric elements or examples in the story.

 

 

Vocabulary

Locate in the story where each of the following words occurs. Then look up a definition of each word. Finally, write a sentence or two explaining the effectiveness of the word.

Stipulated

Hyperbolic

Discourse

Declamation

Prestigious

Sardonic

Gamely

Harassing

Perspiring

Ideology

Glumly

Leniency

Smutty

Dystopian