News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
MOVING TO FRONT FROM TWO DAYS AGO, SINCE A LIVELY DISCUSSION HAS ENSUED
Reader Roger Young writes:
I'm interested to know what Leiter Reports readers think of this recent squabble on the University of Michgan campus:
http://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/statement-regarding-american-sniper-movie/
There's also an IHE story with more information. Readers?
From the IHE article, it sounds like there were still plans to show the movie, even when it was "cancelled," just in a different context intended to foster discussion and critical reflection. Now the showing will be accompanied by laser tag, karaoke, bingo, and build-a-bear.
Some quotes from Chris Kyle's book:
“I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying fuck about them.”
"Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy “savages.” There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there. … I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives."
“But I wondered, how would I feel about killing someone? Now I know. It’s no big deal.”
"There was a little bit of a competition between myself and some of the other snipers during this deployment, to see who got the most kills. … My 'competition' was in my sister platoon … His totals shot up at one point, pulling ahead. Our big boss man … tweaked me a little as the other sniper pulled in front. 'He's gonna break your record,' he'd tease. 'You better get on that gun more.' Well, things evened out real fast—all of a sudden I seemed to have every stinkin' bad guy in the city running across my scope. My totals shot up, and there was no catchin' me."
“As far as I can see it, anyone who has a problem with what guys do over there is incapable of empathy."
“On the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in. I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting. I always will."
In response to someone claiming that he had shot someone carrying a Quran he mistook for a weapon: “I don't shoot people with Korans—I'd like to, but I don't.”
Given the realities of the Iraq war, I don't think it's at all surprising that Middle Eastern and Muslim students felt uncomfortable and unsafe with Kyle being glorified and his story presented as carefree entertainment. Harper's portrayal of this as a freedom of expression issue is misleading. The question isn't whether the movie should be banned, it's whether it's appropriate to present it as simple "fun."
Guess not too many university types have read war memoirs. What kinds of attitudes do you think obtain in war zones and especially, in urban/guerrilla warfare environments?
And why would someone feel "unsafe" at the screening of a movie, at Michigan? Because the students watching the movie will suddenly go berserk and decide to start beating up Muslim students? How is this any better than the non-Muslim students worrying that the Muslim students are closet-Isis members?
I'm sorry, but banning this film was ridiculous. The rationales given are ridiculous. Grad student's characterization of it is ridiculous. And if those of us who call ourselves "liberals" don't want to live up to every wretched stereotype cooked up by the Rush Limbaughs of the world, we really ought to stop acting like this. Because we're earning it.
Is this for real or a satire?
I have no doubt that the movie in question is stupid and offensive to many people but if you going to ban movies on the grounds of being offensive, there'll be a whole lot of banning going on. Most movies offend our intelligence to begin with.
Now as for the movie Paddington, the supposed alternative to American Sniper, a movie about a talking bear who loves marmalade, that may be offensive to bears, to begin with: bears prefer meat to marmalade and don't like being stereotyped. Second, by the time I was around age 4 or 5 I felt infantilized by so-called children's movies and I imagine that most thinking children also dislike being portrayed as being cute, loving bears and sweets: so the children's liberation front may have something to say about this offensive movie, Paddington, being shown. Third, I'm a borderline pre-diabetic and movies about marmalade may trigger traumas about my possibly fatal (in the long-run) medical condition and I call upon all borderline pre-diabetics to boycott this unfeeling and insensitive film, no doubt funded by the marmalade industry.
I'm a little confused why you think the issue isn't whether the movie should be banned, when the students who protested it weren't protesting its presentation as "simple 'fun'", but were protesting its being shown at all.
American Sniper is an anti-war movie, if you, y'know, actually watch and think about it. I'm not sure what those quotes from Kyle's book are supposed to show…that the protagonist in the movie isn't a true hero, in the historical sense? Well, yes, but the movie does not portray him as such. Yes, many dumb Republican viewers misunderstand the message of the movie. But what I don't understand is why the smart liberal elites insist on interpreting the movie in the same way. Simply out of a desire to fight a new battle in the culture war?
Actually, bears seem to prefer beer to just about everything. At least around Lake Tahoe.
"American Sniper is an anti-war movie, if you, y'know, actually watch and think about it."
Talk about being maximally charitable (to charitably characterize a dumb take on the movie). Every Iraqi in the movie is portrayed as comically evil and/or a target to be annihilated; the movie simply ignores the fact that Kyle was a reprehensible sociopath; it has a perverse "we-have-to-take-care-of-our-own-kind" (i.e., Christian kind) theme that makes one shudder; and so on. It's a morally depraved piece of jingoistic garbage.
That said, I think people should watch it, if only because it uncovers some of the more unpleasant aspects of American society. Banning it was indeed ridiculous.
@Herodotus,
Because that's not true. The woman who started the petition explicitly said "I don't think this film fits that event, which is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. *I think it should be played, but not at this event.*" When the host of the event originally decided not to show it, they said "Student reactions have clearly articulated that *this is neither the venue nor the time to show this movie*," and, again, according to the IHE article, there were plans to show the movie all along, just in a different context. As far as I can tell, no one was taking issue with that. (quotes from http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/08/american-sniper-screening-university-michigan/25451307)
I have no idea why people are saying the film was "banned" when it seems like they were planning on showing it all along. Deciding a film is not appropriate for one venue and showing it in another is not "banning" anything.
@JDRox
I think the quotes are examples of the kinds of things Kyle said that might lead people to feel like he was racist, anti-Islamic, and a reckless killer. The movie erases this unsavory aspect of his story while buying into his vision of Iraqis as a one-dimensional "evil" threat. It doesn't necessarily portray him as a "true hero," but it definitely glorifies him.
@Daniel A. Kaufman,
Feeling unsafe doesn't always mean you feel directly threatened. Imagine you were a Jewish student and your university decided it would be a fun, relaxing event to play laser tag and show a fun film portraying Nazi protagonists bravely fighting the insidious Jewish threat. I think it would be completely reasonable to say that made you feel unsafe, not because you think anyone is going to immediately rise up and beat you, but because it seems to show people on your campus are buying into hateful stereotypes and ideology that you are the target of.
I do not want to compare Kyle to Nazis—I just want to compare how showing such a film might make students feel unsafe to how showing American Sniper might make Muslim and Middle Eastern students feel unsafe. Not because they anyone thinks students will "suddenly go bezerk" and start beating them, but because it's hard to feel safe when your peers seem to accept hateful stereotypes, that, in this case, have actually directly led to the deaths of people like you.
grad student wrote:
I just want to compare how showing such a film might make students feel unsafe to how showing American Sniper might make Muslim and Middle Eastern students feel unsafe. Not because they anyone thinks students will "suddenly go bezerk" and start beating them, but because it's hard to feel safe when your peers seem to accept hateful stereotypes, that, in this case, have actually directly led to the deaths of people like you.
I agree with JDRox. Its an anti-war movie. Reminds me of "Born in the USA" in how its being misinterpreted.
Tyler Cowen has a good brief review:
Chris Hedges, who spent two decades covering wars, wrote a good article about American Sniper a few months ago:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/killing_ragheads_for_jesus_20150125
Like Daniel Kaufman, I'm Jewish and like most Jews, I lost most of my family in the Holocaust.
Far from needing to be sheltered from the fact of anti-semitism, I've always been interested in the subject. I read or tried to read Mein Kampf many years ago, giving up reading it not because it made it feel me "unsafe", but because I found it tedious.
Maybe if the Muslim or Middle Eastern students saw the movie, American Sniper, they would see how incredibly stupid, unthinking, primitive, machista and afraid of diversity, the Navy Seals mentality is and would be able to deal with it, both on a psychological and political level.
And please don't tell me that they need to see the movie with an army of therapists holding their hands and wiping away their tears. That is insulting to their rationality and adultness.
Can you really not fathom objecting to an event in a series of "fun, late night activities… catering to the interests of a diverse student population" that consisted of playing laser tag, getting massages, and watching Triumph of the Will? Because that strikes me as something that would obviously be worth objecting to. Not because I want to "ban" the film, but because presenting it in the context of lighthearted entertainment seems indicative of significant anti-Semitism and at best seriously misguided.
"Tough luck" is a bizarre attitude to have in these situations. These aren't lumps you have to swallow. They're decisions made by people, which other people can try to influence if they think a serious mistake was made. If you think a decision creates a bad atmosphere for minority students, it seems obvious that you should, you know, *say something* rather than just quietly thinking "oh, tough luck!"
I think it's worth reading the story before the right-wing blogosphere got ahold of it: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/umix-film-removed
To summarize: After the Center for Campus Involvement announced the film would be shown, a student sent them a letter expressing concern. She also posted her letter to facebook, and after receiving supportive comments decided to circulate a similar letter so others could sign it as well. They sent the group letter a few hours later, with about 200 signatures. The CCI released a statement saying that they appreciated the feedback and would replace the film with another that "better creates the fun, engaging atmosphere we seek," and they later announced that they would show American Sniper "in a separate forum that provides an appropriate space for dialogue & reflection." The student then thanked them for listening and responding to their concerns.
This strikes me as exactly the right way for the students to have handled their concerns. "Generation Wuss" strikes again, I guess.
It's fairly common for people who are identifiably Muslim, Arab, or MENA in America to experience significant hatred. The rate of anti-Muslim hate crimes is still 5x above pre-9/11 levels, and apparently the rate of anti-Muslim threats tripled after the release of American Sniper (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/24/american-sniper-anti-muslim-threats-skyrocket ) I don't know why it would be so surprising to hear that all this sometimes makes people feel unsafe.
I'm pretty confident that you have no idea how many times the students in question have been mugged at gunpoint and ridden the subway in the Bronx. They're saying they're worried about feeling unsafe. You don't know them. Maybe try listening to what they're saying instead of declaring that they don't understand the meaning of the word.
I am curious, since you mention the world in which we actually live: was it the case that a Nazi propaganda movie was aired during or immediately after WW2 and the Holocaust?
It seems to me the analogy hinges on the attitude of the general or majority population towards the threatened minority and the events portrayed. It also seems to me that it is hardly infantile of the minority to fear — especially in the current climate of ignorance — events and propaganda that whips up anger against them. It may be fine to say “tough luck”, but this meme about infantilzation seems to serve only as a fallback to or signaling mechanism of personal irritation.
One thing I don't think has got enough attention in this whole shebang is how we got from the moment of sensible resolution grad student describes to the current state of affairs. When grad student left off the narrative, the university had acknowledged the silliness of the original idea, and proposed to replace the screening at this specific event before having a separate American Sniper screening and academic discussion forum at a later date. I don't see how anyone could object to what looked like happening at that point.
However, after the UM football coach tweeted "Michigan Football will watch 'American Sniper'! Proud of Chris Kyle & Proud to be an American & if that offends anybody then so be it!" then the university changed course and decided to screen it at the original time with no discussion forum. Readers will note that coach's bloviating has nothing whatsoever to do with the original objections to the screening and manages to suggest that anyone holding those objections is somehow UnAmerican. It's perhaps unsurprising on that basis that his tweet was also the point at which signers of the original petition started getting barrages of online harassment from people with nothing to do with the university, many of whom thanked him directly in their harassing messages.
Thanks to the intervention of a gym teacher and his bumper-sticker jingo wisdom the university gave up on its obligations to address ideological conflict though rational discussion. Surely this is more worrying than any other aspect of the kerfuffle, all of which we've seen a hundred times before?
My thoughts upon seeing the photo at the head of the IHE article: "Holy shit! Chris Kyle is about to blow Paddington bear's brains all over the internet!"
There are two justifications here that don't work well together. First justification: the event is supposed to be fun and lighthearted, the movie is not fun and lighthearted, so the movie has been replaced but will be shown elsewhere on campus. Second justification: Muslim and Middle Eastern students will become less safe as a result of the movie being screened on campus.
If the first justification is the only correct one, then this business about safety is a bullshit red herring. But suppose that the movie really does raise the danger level to Muslims and Middle Easterners. If that were the case, then it's not clear why the right reaction is to move the screening across campus. What should be done instead is to not show the movie, or add a bunch of security guards, or put a special security detail on duty to guard Muslim and Middle Eastern students in the days following the screening. And we should put all students on high alert to watch out for attacks against Muslims and Middle Eastern students in the days or weeks following the screening, depending on how long the danger is supposed to last for. That's what you do when people are no longer safe or secure: you ramp up security or you eliminate the threat to security.
Or is the thinking that having a critical discussion session after the screening will adequately deal with the safety threat? If that's it, then security should be on hand to make sure that nobody at the movie leaves the room until the discussion session is over. If you see the movie but can't stay for the discussion session owing to a dire emergency, then you should have to have follow-up discussions at a later time, and be monitored in the meantime to make sure you don't pose a threat before you've been checked and treated and your security risk has been reduced to safe levels.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is just a case of people using the word 'safe' in a propagandistic way without really meaning what they're saying.
I don't believe anyone is threatened by the screening of a movie. Anyone can claim that they are "uncomfortable" or "don't feel safe." As a general rule, without some credible explanation as to why such discomfort or fears are warranted — that is, why any of the rest of us should think it's not just a matter of subjectvie feeling — we don't ban things, cancel things, hold competing events for things, etc…. And I think that's good. I'm sure that you can see how, otherwise, such claims could easily devolve into a very cheap and easy silencing tactic.
Sorry, but I will stick by the "meme" regarding infantilization. Like many others here — including, I think, the host — I think it is not only obvious, but highly problematic.
I'm teaching a course this summer on the films of Eastwood, concluding with "American Sniper." One of the things I hope my students discover is that there is sort of a difference between a film and a book, maybe even between a person and the book that that person writes. Indeed, the theme of the course is that Eastwood is smarter than many of his critics think he is. The film provides fertile ground for course discussions on moral ambiguity, the relationship between the "American sniper"–good guy–and the "Muslim sniper"–bad guy, how those who view the film may interpret it in accordance with their predispositions (often, of course, without being aware of them)among many other issues this film raises. Perhaps, as has been indicated, the context of "fun" is what is at issue here?
For perspective, consider a particular case of how uninfantilized liberals used to be when it came to matters of free speech, the planned American Nazi march through Skokie Illinois in 1977/8:
"In 1977 Frank Collin, the leader of National Socialist Party of America, announced the party's intention to march through Skokie, Illinois. In the predominantly Jewish community, one in six residents was a Holocaust survivor. Originally, the NSPA had planned a political rally in Marquette Park in Chicago; however the Chicago authorities blocked these plans by requiring the NSPA to post a public safety insurance bond and by banning political demonstrations in Marquette Park.
"On behalf of the NSPA, the ACLU challenged the injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois that prohibited marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas.
…
"…Skokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked.
"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute 'fighting words.' Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
Now of course this was a case of potential direct governmental control over speech, so in that way differs from the university setting, where other considerations may apply.
But the important point is that the ACLU — which liberals particularly and proudly identified with — invested its resources in the defense of the American Nazi party.
This is where liberals stood as recently as 1977 on what speech they would defend.
How did we get to where we are today, and why would we want to be here?
Lexington:
First, Bravo! Well put.
Second, with respect to how we got here.
1. The shrinking number of classical liberals, on the political left and the increasing number of Marcuse-style, "repressive tolerance" leftists. This has been going on since the 60's.
2. The penetration of academic disciplines by identity politics.
3. The development of a pathologically risk-averse ethos.
4. The development of a pathological "everyone must have prizes" ethos.
5. The coddling and helicopter-parenting that so many millennials grew up with.
6. The effort to subject all interpersonal conflict to bureaucratic and administrative methods of "conflict resolution."
Add all that together, and you get here. And yes, here is a pretty ugly place; one that will insure that the country remains center-right in its ethos, simply because this version of leftism is so unappealing to most people.
So far as I can see, Lexington, there simply is no free speech issue here. The film was shown. And even if it hadn't been shown, any UM student who wanted to could have plunked down his $ at the local mega-plex to see Mr Eastwood's film.
If you nonetheless want to think about this controversy through the lens of free speech, then there is (I think) an answer to your question 'How did we get to where we are today and why would we want to be here?' We got here because people have thought more deeply about speech act theory. (Cf. Rae Langton's work on pornography and silencing.) The reason we want to be here is because the framework of classical liberalism has been revealed to be inadequate to confront relations of power and oppression that are so entrenched that they have become normalized.
That's not to say that this particular instance rises above a category 5 tempest in a teacup. I suspect what's at the bottom of this is a polarizing film that (rightly or wrongly) serves as a litmus test for being an American of one sort or another. Many UM students would probably define themselves precisely in opposition to the football coach and his attitude. Long hair on college campuses in the 1960s was a similar mark of identity: it said, 'There's a certain set of values that I want to symbolically reject.' The "debate" over the proper venue for this film probably won't support too much more rational insight than a "debate" over the length of one's hair did in '68. That's not to say it isn't important. But to treat it like an issue to be debated in terms of free speech probably misses the reasons why it is important. The film, like the hair, just provides an occasion for a deeper discussion about values.
Dirk Batlzly wrote:
The reason we want to be here is because the framework of classical liberalism has been revealed to be inadequate to confront relations of power and oppression that are so entrenched that they have become normalized.
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
——–KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
——–
As a sometimes-hesitant-classical liberal, I don't agree that any such thing has been "revealed." Certainly, *some*, mainly New-Left types, have made *some* arguments to that effect, but the idea that classical liberalism has been, in any substantial — or widely accepted — sense refuted by these sorts of arguments is just plain false.
Dirk Baltzly,
Of course, relations of power and oppression are normalized and naturalized. They always are.
And the only way to deal with them is to look them in the face, feel unsafe and fight back.
We'd all love to return to the protection of the womb and feel safer than safe.
If Rosa Parks had worried about whether she felt unsafe or not, she wouldn't have refused to get up from her bus seat, would she?
This discussion isn't about whether relations of power are normalized or not, but whether the best way to deal with that is to whine about feeling unsafe or to organize and debate and demonstrate against what is wrong.
I come from Chile. I worked in human rights during the Pinochet dictatorship, during the 80's, the safer part of the dictatorship admittedly. I was beaten, arrested, gased countless times, under surveillance and yes, I felt unsafe.
My woman companion's father was disappeared in 1976 and her mother was one of the first human rights activists in the street and yes, she must have felt unsafe.
A while ago I got together with some friends and realized at one point in the conversation that everyone, but me, my son and one of my friend's step-daughter, had been tortured, really tortured, with electricity. One was poisoned in jail, in an experiment by the secret police testing the effects of poison, which left a few prisoners dead. They felt more than unsafe, I'm sure.
Sólo la lucha nos hace libres (only through struggle we free ourselves), the slogan went and it's more or less true. After years of human rights struggle, most of the people directly involved in torture and murder during the dictatorship (although not the civilians who benefited from it nor the civilians from Pinochet's cabinets) are in jail. Pinochetismo, as an ideology, is over: although 44% of the population voted for Pinochet in the 1988 plebiscite, almost no one publicly supports him now. The only rightwing president elected since the return to democracy in 1990, Sebastian Piñera never supported the dictatorship (although he did little against it and got rich during it) and it's evident that Piñera popularity has much to do with his distance from Pinochetismo.
The neo-liberal economic system which Pinochet established in Chile (see Naomi Klein's book, the Shock Doctrine), received its first possibly fatal wounds, not when someone whined about feeling unsafe, but when Chilean students took to the streets in 2011 to demand free quality education, including university education, for everyone.
So the point is that if you fight back, you may win. You may also lose, but when you genuinely feel unsafe, you have nothing to lose but your fears.
Where have you been? The ACLU still does things things like this all the time, and many, many liberals still proudly identify with them. In 2006 they sued Missouri for not letting the Westboro Baptist Church picket funerals. In 2012 they sued Georgia for not letting the KKK adopt a highway. This is just not a free speech issue.
It's strange to hear the concerns of people of color be dismissed as the products of things (helicopter parenting, "everyone must have prizes") that are largely a part of white suburban culture. How is that supposed to have worked? Not all millennials are the privileged white kids the NYT is so interested in.
I know a few women who have advocated for similar issues, and they are honestly some of the most compassionate, thoughtful people I know. It makes me deeply sad to hear people dismiss these concerns as just people "being babies" instead of listening and engaging with what is being said.
I too read with puzzlement the implication that the ACLU no longer carries out such activism or that it does not draw the support of liberals in doing so. So, to quote Daniel Kaufman, "Bravo, well put".
Daniel Kaufman writes above, in response to me: "that is, why any of the rest of us should think it's not just a matter of subjectvie feeling — we don't ban things, cancel things, hold competing events for things, etc….". Am I reading this correctly, to mean that we should not only not call for banning such harmful and unedifying speech (as the sniper movie), but more, not attempt to counter them with competing events? While others (Dirk Batlzly, most excellently) have suggested that seeing this through the lens of "free speech" is not fruitful, in a more general sense, my question to Daniel is whether an effective ban on counterargument ("don't… hold competing events") is in the spirit of effective freedoms?
Grad student:
Well, those of us on the other side of the issue are "deeply sad" too. Not sure what that's supposed to show, other than that we disagree profoundly on this issue and that each of us thinks the other reprsents a socially destructive set of attitudes. But, we already knew that, didn't we?
As for what you find "strange," helicopter parenting and the "all must have prizes" mentality are only two of the elements I listed, out of six. Perhaps your sense of strangeness would clear up, if you paid attention to the other four.
As for Ravi, go ahead and hold whatever competing events you like. I'm just speaking to what has commonly been the case, before we turned into…this. You know very well I haven't suggested banning anything, and my remarks were not restricted to free speech concerns, but more generally, to how we react to things we don't like. You can try to turn this around, but the only people talking about banning, canceling, "calling out" and the like are the people on your side of the issue, not the classical liberals in the room.
I am not trying to "turn this around", but was seeking clarification on what you had written and the way I had read it. The question was not facetious. I very much think "effective freedom" examinations can be made in such cases. I think references such as "people on your side of the issue" (i.e., there are two staked out positions here, and I belong to one, and that what any member of one group says is applicable to all) are not productive, are they?
Ravi:
I am sorry, but I was under the impression that you agree with the "regime" under which we currently find ourselves, in which claims of offense, "not feeling safe," and the like, are simply accepted at face-value and used to justify canceling events, disinviting speakers, banning various things, holding competing events, providing "safe spaces," and the like. If I am mistaken, then I hope you will clarify what your position actually is.
All discussion and argument about trends and fads and character aside, this really comes down to one thing, and one thing only:
Danial Kaufman: "I don't believe anyone is threatened by the screening of a movie."
This is a fairly straightforward question of fact. My personal view is that Kaufman is incorrect – there has been plenty of testimony from minorities that things which the majority view as entirely innocuous can in fact feel very threatening to them. In addition, I would suggest to Daniel Kaufman that his own personal narrative is in fact hindering him from seeing clearly what others feel. The fact that you have powerfully resisted prejudice and overcome – perhaps even been strengthened by – tragic events does not mean that everyone will respond to similar negative pressures in the same way.
In addition to being a question of fact, it's also a question of style of engagement. To engage in debate with someone having decided in advance that you know how they (or certain relevant other persons) feel (or that you know there are certain feelings which they cannot be experiencing) seems very dubious to me.
I also think it's disastrously silly to see this as a "free speech" issue. Questions of state restrictions on speech are distinctive and vital. Lumping the speech (movie) choices of a private organisation into questions of censorship is just muddying the water.
Phil H:
You confuse "feeling threatened" with actually *being* threatened.
That's what much of this thread is about. I will repeat it one more time. We do not typically cancel events, ban things, disinvite speakers, hold competing events, or provide "safe spaces", simply on the grounds that someone *says* they *feel* threatened. Typically, if you want one of these drastic things to be done, you have to *demonstrate* that you are under some real, *credible* threat.
What these trends represent is a moving away from this common practice. They represent the notion that merely on the claim of *feeling* unsafe, we should cancel, ban, disinvite, etc….
Some of us think this is a disastrous development. Others — like you — obviously, do not think it a disastrous development and may even think it's great.
*That* is the issue. (And I have *never* said this is a free speech issue, so you can drop that one.)
Grad student,
The ACLU today is hardly the fierce, uncompromising advocate of free speech it was in 1977, nor, it's quite reasonable to conclude, are its liberal supporters today what they were in 1977.
Wendy Kaminer, who served on the national board of the ACLU, wrote a sharply critical book of the transformation of the ACLU, "Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU". The book is cogent, revealing, and highly readable, and I recommend it highly.
To give you a taste, here's a column she wrote on the sea change at the ACLU:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117988506623111630
And you might do well to think about the cases you adduce as to the continued advocacy of the ACLU for robust free speech. One involves the right of the Westboro Church to picket at military funerals — hardly events at which liberals are disproportionately represented, or in which their interests are particularly at stake. The other involves the KKK adopting a highway — not exactly an act of free speech fraught with offensive content.
Where is the ACLU defending free speech where the content of that speech greatly offends modern day "liberal" identity politics sensibilities?
One can argue that the current attitude of the ACLU and most liberals toward what speech they will defend is the correct one, rather than the attitude of 1977. But there's no serious case that the attitude of today and that of 1977 are the same.
As someone profoundly nauseated by the recent tendency toward aggressive, punitive displays of one's own sensitivity, oppressive attempts to stamp out opinions deemed oppressive, privileged callings out of others' privilege, exclusionary attempts to promote approved forms of inclusiveness, shameful attempts to shame, and silencing attempts to prevent silencing, I am deeply heartened to see the predictable backlash gaining vitality.
However, in this case I find myself sympathetic to the claim that the movie might not have been appropriate for this particular venue for the reasons grad student has given. But that's not really the point of this discussion thread. The issue is one of culture. For even if the petition in this case was justified, on which I take no stand, the far more important point is that if we refuse to recognize the plain reality that many contemporary claims to feel unsafe, oppressed, etc., and especially claims to be concerned about others feeling unsafe, oppressed, silenced, etc. are deeply pathetic and/or manipulative, then we create a situation in which legitimate grievances and concerns about those grievances will likely be dismissed as just more pathetic, manipulative, narrowly self-serving, socially destructive bullshit.
Daniel,
I am trying to understand the arguments as well as the rhetoric, and form a reasonable opinion.
While I do not agree with the use of variants of the terms "infantile" and "identity politics" to cover and criticise a range of activities/activism, I also find some of the criticism substantive. My position is not well defined. At the superficial level, I agree that there is a real danger of turning sensitivity into censorship. I would agree with you that it does not help "our" cause to ban events or speech that might alarm some group, but I would not agree that holding competing events or providing "safe spaces" is a bad thing. I suspect a good part of the criticism of the latter (safe spaces) springs from personal irritation, but perhaps I am wrong. Similarly I agree that there is an important difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but I disagree (at least at the moment) there is a clear line of separation.
Regarding destructive and counterproductive positions (comment #33, Anon prof), I would argue that strident ridicule ("pathetic", "bullshit", etc) is likely to do more damage and destruction exactly in the sense of arming the reactionary Right. I sense that this is not meaningful politics, to centre one's analysis around the perceived psychological states and impulses of potential fellow travellers. The issue should be of politics, not of culture.
The movie I think has caused significant damage (it is wishful to think that Eastwood has a deeper or subversive point). How does one counter that effect?
It's too bad the students chose to go with "feeling unsafe" as the basis for their complaint. Seems to me the real issue is that showing "Sniper" in the original context was in rather poor taste. The film does, after all, tell the story – albeit with artistic license – of a man who, by his own account, very much enjoyed killing Iraqi people for sport. I for one think it's perfectly reasonably to point out the indecency of including such a film at a university-sponsored event designed for the express purpose of lighthearted entertainment. As a general rule, if "Paddington Bear" is quite fitting for a particular occasion, "American Sniper" probably isn't! I'd imagine that's a claim far less likely to irk the anti-wuss crowd, but I could be wrong. What say you, irked ones?
@ Daniel
I'm glad you haven't mentioned free speech. Others have, and therefore I'll drop it when I choose, thanks.
Here is the problem with your argument:
"We do not typically cancel events, ban things, disinvite speakers, hold competing events, or provide "safe spaces", simply on the grounds that someone *says* they *feel* threatened."
Certainly we don't ban things when someone says they feel threatened. But conflating "canceling events" and "banning things" is again a disastrous confusion. One is private choice; the other is imposed restriction. They're not morally or politically comparable in any way, shape or form.
In this case, it was a voluntary cancellation, so let's examine that assertion: "We do not typically cancel events…on the grounds that someone says they feel threatened." Again, it's a question of fact, and this just looks untrue to me. At those times when I've been in charge of organising a party, I have done precisely that: selected or changed my venue or theme based on people's preferences. A swimming party became a picnic because one attendee was scared of the water. At my university, a film event replaced a horror movie with an alternative because some students said they were scared of horror movies. For an event which is supposed to be fun, people's feelings are of paramount importance. (You may be able to justify making students feel uncomfortable for the purposes of better educating them; but this event was not an educational session.)
"it is wishful to think that Eastwood has a deeper or subversive point"
Kyle shoots a child dead in the very first scene. The child was carrying a grenade meant for American marines. As you must know from when you saw the movie, it's not a "fuck yeah" scene. Later the film revisits this event, and shows a sickened and traumatized Kyle returning to barracks.
The real Kyle, however, denied ever killing a child. So that particular event appears to be artistic license from the director. Why do you think Eastwood/Hall added it?
Well, Phil, we are just very different people.
I did not cancel my daughter's ice-skating party, because one kid out of thirty didn't ice-skate. Yes, "peoples' preferences" matter, but it also matters "how many people" and relative to "how many other people." Others have said in this discussion that this isn't the "all must have prizes" phenomenon, but your formulation, here, makes it precisely that.
I will leave you to argue with people who are making a free speech case.
A better question to ask is why Eastwood would make an "anti-war" movie that he knew full well millions would construe as a "fuck yeah, let's kill 'em all" movie. The wisdom of hiding your subversive point beneath a pile of jingoism is scarcely obvious. Eastwood's repug political leanings are well-known. The idea that he made an anti-war movie (an anti-Iraq-war movie?) taxes credulity. The movie is anti-war only to the extent that it says others (non-Christians and other "enemies" of America) shouldn't wage war against us (which, incidentally, goes some distance toward explaining the opening scene you're talking about).
Re 39:I agree that American Sniper is a nastily jingoistic movie, albeit in quite a restrained way, in that it portrays American soldiers serving in Iraq as unambiguously being about decent people making a huge sacrifice for their country, and treats the Iraqis as primarily scary savages, whilst only being 'anti-war' in so far as it portrays the war as a scarring experience *for Americans*. But it's worth saying that a) Eastwood opposed the war, and this on record from the time, and b) Eastwood has actually backed Democrats as well as Republican politically before. That's not to say he opposed the war for the right reasons of course, but it does illustrate the threat to accuracy of simplistically demonizing your enemies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood#Politics). Though to be fair, your partly excused by the fact that when it comes to the Republicans, simplistic demonization probably leads to a fairly accurate view of their motives, quite a lot of the time.
I am inclined to say in this particular case that since the purpose of the film screening was to entertain students a petition signed by 200 students might be a good enough reason to cancel or change the event, regardless of the reasoning behind it. For instance, if over 200 students signed a petition against a screening of the Fast and the Furious 47 on the grounds that it is godawful mindless garbage, the university would be wise to cancel it and show something else. It really depends on how many people signing the petition actually intend to watch the event.
My suspicion is that in this case many of the people who signed the petition likely never even go to the event in question, which would undermine the legitimacy of the petition. It is important to realize that consumerist reasoning cuts both ways: while it can support the cancellation of the event if enough people complain, it also renders the complaints of small minorities irrelevant. You can never please everyone. Moreover, since it is a recurring event it is not a zero-sum competition of interests. It is unlikely that there are many people who attend every single screening, as most people are likely busy some weeks or more interested in some films than others. The only problematic instance is the one in which no one is interested in seeing a particular film.
If there were enough students who wanted to see the film and the petition was signed because some body of students does not want other students to see the film, THEN it becomes a straightforward issue of censorship. One could just as easily imagine a large number of students demanding that the university cancel screenings of anti-war films or anti-capitalist films because it makes them feel like they are surrounded by scary communists. I have absolutely no doubt that there were just as many people afraid of communists in the 50's and 60's as there are people afraid of antisemitism now. Communists really did have huge spy networks, and they actually had the power to wipe out the planet in a nuclear holocaust. That's pretty damn scary. Nevertheless, it would have been censorship then, and it is censorship now.
Moreover, the following statement given by Phil H @36 is clearly false:
"But conflating "canceling events" and "banning things" is again a disastrous confusion. One is private choice; the other is imposed restriction. They're not morally or politically comparable in any way, shape or form."
A systematic policy to cancel any event that someone finds offensive is equivalent in effect to banning events that people find offensive. The only real difference between the two is that the former wastes more time and energy than the latter.
"The wisdom of hiding your subversive point beneath a pile of jingoism is scarcely obvious."
Ok. Then tell me how you would persuade pro-war jingoists to come see your anti-war movie?
"American Sniper is a nastily jingoistic movie…"
Right-Wing Jingoism 101: Your guys are brave and strong. They risk life and limb to fight for freedom and justice. They save women and children. Then die in combat, saving others, not while out shooting tins in Texas. If anybody in your film snipes at children from rooftops, it had better be the other guys.
"…[that] treats the Iraqis as primarily scary savages, whilst only being 'anti-war' in so far as it portrays the war as a scarring experience *for Americans*."
I need to be persuaded. Much of the tension in the film is created through the use of moral dilemmas involving threats to the lives of Iraqi innocents. For example, there's a scene in the film where Kyle, safe on a rooftop, peers through his scope at a child attempting to pick up a rocket launcher. Kyle whispers "Don't pick it up." There is no threat to Kyle, yet the scene is really tense. Why? Who are we worried about? Does Eastwood intend us to fear for the life of the "savage" Iraqi child?
There's another scene in which members of an innocent Iraqi family are executed one by one in the square after being promised protection by Kyle, who cannot help because he is held down by enemy sniper fire. Kyle is safe provided he does not try to save the family, yet the scene is tense, terrifying and exasperating. Why? I guess one possibility is that we fear that Kyle will foolishly risk his life for a family of Iraqi "savages". Another is that we fear that the family will be executed because we are worried for Kyle's psychiatric well-being over the middle to long term (given his misplaced compassion for Iraqi "savages"). These explanations seem implausible to me. It's more likely that we sympathize with the innocent Iraqi family, we don't think they are savage, we want Kyle to protect them as he promised, and we find it progressively devastating as each member of the family is executed while Kyle is able to do nothing.
"Ok. Then tell me how you would persuade pro-war jingoists to come see your anti-war movie?"
So Eastwood made an anti-war movie and dressed it up like a pro-war movie so that pro-war jingoists would flock to see it? But why do this (now that we're asking questions) if, as I'm sure he knew, those pro-war jingoists wouldn't get the alleged anti-war message, wherever it is? I'd hazard a guess that there's not a pro-war person on the planet who, after watching the movie, thought: 'Shit, Eastwood is on to something; war is hell, and we should seriously reflect on our impulse to wage it'. A number of people in the cinema where I saw it cheered after the idiotic final sequence in which Kyle dispatches Mustafa (a sequence, by the way, that could have been taken right out of a Michael Bay movie).
Quite apart from any of that, though, the plastic baby should be enough to ruin the movie for anyone.
"So Eastwood made an anti-war movie and dressed it up like a pro-war movie…"
If you think it looks pro-war, that might be because Eastwood studiously avoids criticizing the American soldiers themselves and because, like a lot of the critics, you find it easier to fall for the old lie "if you criticize the war, you criticize the troops!" when it is presented in the contrapositive.
Here's a simple tale: In 2001, an earnest and morally naive America was shocked by 9/11. Feeling that something needed to be done it followed its leaders into Iraq. But though it occupied a position of unassailable dominance, it quickly found itself in over its head. Men were lost. Attempts to do good backfired. Civilians died, then more civilians died. America lost its mind and its moral center and turned into something unrecognizable. Yet it could not "cut and run", since it felt that its presence was needed.
Now replace "it" with "he" and "America" with "Chris Kyle" and you get the plot of Eastwood's film. The film is a parable of America's fall from sanity, with Kyle personifying the United States.
Then again, maybe it's just a pro-war jingoistic turd. To defend this less-than-charitable interpretation, however, you need to explain why Eastwood, a public critic of America's wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, would create such a thing.
You have to proceed on a very dubious assumption if you want to read the movie that way, viz., that Eastwood thinks the Iraq war caused America to lose its moral center and turned it into something unrecognizable. He's been around for a while. I doubt he's that naive.
And I don't think it looks pro-war "because Eastwood avoids criticizing the American soldiers themselves and because [I find it easier to fall for some old lie]." I think it looks pro-war for the reasons I actually gave. But you seem to agree that it *looks* pro-war–didn't Eastwood dress it up that way to attract the jingoists?–so it's puzzling that you're contesting that point now.
"In 2001, an earnest and morally naive America was shocked by 9/11. Feeling that something needed to be done it followed its leaders into Iraq. But though it occupied a position of unassailable dominance, it quickly found itself in over its head. Men were lost. Attempts to do good backfired. Civilians died, then more civilians died. America lost its mind and its moral center and turned into something unrecognizable. Yet it could not 'cut and run', since it felt that its presence was needed."
And its presence was, indeed, needed. It was needed to root out the evildoers.
Now replace 'evildoers' with Mustafa. The movie represents America's perceived need to right moral wrongs, at any cost. Eastwood's pro-war message isn't as silly as 'Let's get in there and kill 'em all', but it is a pro-war message, perhaps a more dangerous one: there's evil in the world, and sometimes the only way for the morally righteous to stamp it out is to wage war.
"but it is a pro-war message, perhaps a more dangerous one: there's evil in the world, and sometimes the only way for the morally righteous to stamp it out is to wage war."
As stated this is less a message than a truism (provided it can be phrased in less realist language). What would make it dangerous is its rhetorical use. If stated in defense of a cause it is dogmatic, insofar as it simply presupposes that those who triumph the cause are morally righteous. Considering the film is focused on the actions of one individual it is somewhat dubious to extrapolate from this that the message is that the entire war was so justified. I suspect that rather than making a pro-war or anti-war movie, Eastwood was trying to paint a complex story about a single individual, as least as far as he sees it. Of course, you can still say that the film had the effect of conveying a pro-war message even if this was not Eastwood's intent. Though I suspect that the concepts "pro-war" and "anti-war" are simply too inchoate for your dispute to be meaningful.
" you seem to agree that it *looks* pro-war–didn't Eastwood dress it up that way to attract the jingoists?"
No. You introduced the idea that Eastwood made an anti-war movie where the message is buried under a "pile" of jingoism, suggesting that this was absurd. My response implied that it would not be absurd for someone to do this since it might get people to see a movie that could change their minds. You interpreted me as saying that that is what Eastwood did. But I never said that. I maintain that the movie's content is inconsistent with a jingoistic movie. See jingoism 101 in post 43 above.
Leave a Reply to Phil H Cancel reply