In his essay on the philosophical underpinnings of requiring people to learn to handle offensive speech, Andy Koppelman used the case of Jason Kilborn (UIC)–who was suspended (in 2020) for using bowdlerized references to racist and sexist epithets on an exam– as his paradigm and jumping-off point. I suggested these were inappropriate (or at least outdated) examples and ignored five years of censorship, on similar ideas-should-not-be-heard logic, from the right.
But I think I framed this wrong: The issue is not that Jason’s case is “wrong” in illustrating the problem. I did not intend to downplay Jason’s case or to argue that he has not been a victim of censorship efforts; I regret that my use of the word “wrong” gave that impression. The issue is that Koppelman offered (because of space limitations) an incomplete list of problematic illustrations, that he could have included examples of the same problem from the other side. Andy acknowledged that point, so I think agree we on the all-spectrum scope of the problem.
One empirical point that might be worth exploring: Do schools dig-in harder in response to demands from the left than from the right? UIC apparently has spent more than $ 2 million in Jason’s case and continues to deny any free-speech violation. On the other hand, schools have been quickly settling Charlie Kirk-related cases. What about Israel/Palestine?