The eroding right to offend
Hate speech, as Oxford University’s student’s union referred to, exists, but who is to define it? The more we fail to seriously consider these questions and the implications of restricting material, the more we erode our own fundamental rights.
Oxford University’s student union recently proposed a policy to include ‘trigger warnings’ on reading lists that contain “hate speech” against minority groups, touting that students should be allowed to sit out parts of their degree programme that contain this so-called ‘triggering’ material. This really gets at a widening gap between the divides of society: one side, viewing the right to be offensive and say daring things as the driver of humanity’s progress in the now and in the past, and; those that put the risk of offending people at the forefront of their minds, making them willing to censor themselves and others.
Oxford’s shocking motion – whilst thankfully rejected – is telling of the mood today at universities, and is really no outlier. Student unions across the country have taken it upon themselves to adopt such draconian motions to restrict what people can view in the fear that it may cause offence.
However, these young people fail to see that everything daring, or even neutral, that has ever been said has triggered somebody, emotionally or otherwise. Common courtesy and professionalism when making a point or creating an academic work, no matter how profound, is always key to carrying an audience with you or conveying something that can expand the mind beyond the echo-chambers. Nevertheless, no matter the level of care we take, whatever we write or say will offend somebody.
What surprises me most is the fact that students, who are meant to number amongst the academics of tomorrow, are the ones most vocal about the need to warn and coddle students who may have an aversion to what they encounter. However, any student of history knows that to fully understand a topic we sometimes must stare into the grim whirlpool of humanity’s sins and look upon something frightful. However, what we take away from that experience makes us more knowledgeable as a result.
When students leave university, they will encounter the world with all its ugliness and suffering – a suffering they will feel themselves. But life is suffering, to be human is to err yes but to also experiment; to say and write things we feel to be true. We may be pulled down and ridiculed but how else are we to know whether what we think holds any truth. Whether you’re in a protected social group or not, nothing can shield us from offense and, beyond offering courtesy and manners, nor should we try to. The right to be offensive is precious and eroding quickly.
These fundamental ideas were once a given. As humanity progressed and expanded, new ideas would sprout up and violent reactions would ensue but eventually a conclusion would be settled; something would be taken from it to be utilised in the future. Setting the boundaries of what we can say or do must, in most cases, be negotiated between individuals and within reason, not decreed by any government or body.
Hate speech, as Oxford University’s student’s union referred to, exists, but who is to define it? The more we fail to seriously consider these questions and the implications of restricting material, the more we erode our own fundamental rights. If that doesn’t concern you, I’m not sure what will.
