For me, the Sexism Teach-in—hosted by Vassar's Feminist Alliance Nov. 3—was an extremely strange event. I completely agree with the sentiment that sexism is a problem on campus and that recent occurrences such as the Davison graffiti are extremely troubling and not acceptable. Yet, after listening to the panel's articulate discussion of a wide variety of related topics, I felt I had to express a slight dissenting point in a respectful manner. I thought that they had neglected to take into account the importance of free speech in their comments on the power of language. However, my comment was dismissed as trivial by most of the respondents of the panel. Of course language has power, but I don't think it excuses the silencing of thought that emerges from the strong emphasis on political correctness at Vassar.
Hate speech, such as the Davison graffiti, is unacceptable. No one who cares deeply about Vassar as a community would disagree. There is no place for these incidents at Vassar. However, there is a clear difference between hate speech and free speech that may be controversial. One may feel prejudice towards a certain group and they have the right to express it as Americans. At Vassar, a casual conversation using muted terms is far more appropriate than a public message that is aimed directly at those who may be offended. Sadly, on a campus of 2600 students, some prejudice is bound to happen. This is not morally correct, but it is possible to be troubled by the prejudice while still allowing people their important constitutional right to speak freely in a way that does not infringe on the well-being of the campus.
My bigger problem with the lack of understanding of free speech on campus emerges from the concept of microaggressions. The popular website Microaggressions.com defines microaggressions as "the subtle ways in which body and verbal language convey oppressive ideology about power or privilege against marginalized identities." This idea makes sense in theory, but its application among Vassar students and on the website is problematic. People on the panel used the term to describe both rape jokes and using the word "crazy" to refer to a person or action.
Those two things are not equitable. Rape jokes make light of a serious issue and are not acceptable in the vast majority of conversations with intelligent individuals, while the word "crazy" has entered the casual lexicon and is almost never meant to actually belittle mental illness. Since microaggressions are defined differently by different people, changing one's individual conversational patterns is almost impossible. This excessive self-regulation also potentially limits campus-wide discussion about controversial topics. Instead, a common consensus should be used to differentiate between the slight, unintended diversions from political correctness and language that is truly insensitive.
I had a particular gripe with one panel member's characterization of Vassar's comedy scene as "sexist." It would be unrealistic to claim that a sexist joke has never been publically performed on campus, but the vast majority of jokes and sketches that have been referred to as problematic are actually comments on said issues if you examine the content closely. For instance, one joke at a Comedy Normative show last semester about an Anorexia Teach-in's poster that stated that "light refreshments will be served" was not making fun of eating disorders, but rather on the lack of care that went into advertising the event.
The point of a large percentage of successful comedy (and this particular joke) is to satirically explore difficult topics and to create dialogue about them. If this type of comedy is removed from Vassar, it not only diminishes the quality of entertainment on campus, but it also hurts the ability for these issues to be discussed in meaningful ways. This is where limiting free speech creates unintended negative consequences.
This lack of discussion is also related to how terms like "feminist" and "liberal" are used in incorrect ways by certain groups. For instance, the Feminist Alliance aims to bring together a unified community of feminists at Vassar, but references to cissexism and the contents of toy stores on their posters limit their inclusivity. The Feminist Alliance represents one strand of feminist thought and not the entire spectrum of Vassar students who reject gender inequality and stereotypes. Others are not as beholden to seeking out the aforementioned microaggressions and hope to attack sexism by listening to all of the perspectives on campus instead of critiquing those who disagree with minor points, but agree with the general message.
This was the main problem I observed among the panel. Very few people wanted to listen to others' concerns, but they were very comfortable expressing their passionate opinions. Passion is good, but it may not help in achieving a campus free of prejudice. If this is the aim, then letting people express their views, without feeling like they may be punished, is crucial. A strong emphasis on political correctness inhibits this idea and serves to further divide our campus. As an open-minded campus, we should be embracing the idea of free speech and allowing people to express their views in a non-hateful manner, no matter how controversial they may be. However, as the Sexism Teach-in proved, this is not the reality in campus discourse.
—Josh Solomon '13 is a sociology major.
To silence their discussion of microaggression is to enact sexist microaggression. That is to say, Mr. Solomon has delightfully turned this situation on its ugly head and made it himself who is excluded. The entire purpose of microaggression is to silence to victim, to turn the situation so that if he or she reacts, it is the victim(s) that are in the wrong. So, for instance, Mr. Soloman's article, which critiques the sexism teach-in for "references to sexism" and who feels himself "not beholden to seeking out the aforementioned microaggressions" has turned the situation into one in which he, as an innocent straight "feminist" white man feels unincluded; he claims he is being silenced by the feminists because they want to nitpick about microaggressions. This, Mr. Soloman, is not what it is liked to be silenced. To be silenced is to be called "crazy," to be silenced is to be called "unclear," to be silenced is to be told that the microaggressions we face as women and as gays, as blacks and poor, are not fair game to talk about because it makes straight white men have to be too careful, the men just aren't able to just speak their minds!!!!! It is radical to demand change when your oppressors deny your daily experiences, your daily truths; if it's crazy to be radical at Vassar, an institution founded for the education of women, then I'm crazy; and if it's crazy to criticize good natured white men who just want to help, then I'm crazy.
If "seeking out the aforementioned microaggressions" is not the goal of feminism, it is at least a goal: to find the ways that sexism and heterosexism and racism and etc work in our society, in our social interactions, in our teach-in, and in our student papers, and to eliminate them.