why I will be thrown out of school

Two things of interest today. Teaching and hate speech. Please feel free to argue that they are one and the same.

Today I asked a colleague (one of my conservative friends - I have a surprising number all things considered) to join me in my large class. She knew a bit more about the context of our readings than I did, so I thought she might have some things to offer. We talked about FDR, Nixon, and the current commander-in-chief. That's right, war rhetoric. The class went exceptionally well. I thought the team-teaching thing went really well, and she was able to address some questions that I could not. Actually, she probably could teach the class on her own, but we focus a bit more on Aristotelian criticism than others might. Still, it was a pleasant experience - and my kids really responded. I feel like we got the important stuff - the virtues that all war rhetoric appeals to: Freedom, Divine Sanction, Invincibility, Security, etc. I think this would actually make for an interesting study. Not that it hasn't been done, but thinking about it in a rhetorical history sort of way - what leads some leaders to appeal to some things more than others. Is it a matter of personality or context?

This actually leads me to the other subject. If the hate speech code had passed the Faculty Senate this week I believe I would be asked to leave the university. For example, today in class I used the following phrases without pausing: "I hate that fucking guy and I am going to rip his throat out" and "Let's go kill some brown people!" Taken out of context, these might be a reason for concern. Now I realize when you hear or read things like that the first thought is "Please tell me a context in which those statements are okay." Fair enough. That is generally my response to Ann Coulter - she has not answered satisfactorily, by the way. But the first was an example of un-righteous anger. The comment was if I said "I hate that..." I would not come across as an innocent victim or a person of reason and justice, but a raving lunatic. The former get support, the latter does not. Hence the need for leaders to be reserved and "moral" in their responses. You know, reasonable. At least most of the time. That comment will be reserved for later. See FDR and Nixon for good examples. And Reagan is always a good example. Of anything. The other phrase - okay, maybe I don't have as good a reason for that one. A student was describing an inappropriate response to war, and they said "Let's go!" in a sarcastic tone - so I finished the thought with "Let's go kill some brown people!" You know, as in Vietnam and Iraq. Everyone laughed out loud and most looked profoundly uncomfortable, especially my guest teacher. I don't think she realized I am prone to say such things in class. I was happy to see that the few minorities in my class (at least the ones in the first few rows)looked quite pleased.

Point being, I am pretty sure I could get thrown out even for those sarcastic teaching moments. And I wonder about the legitimacy of a hate speech code. I understand the reasoning, and think there is something to teaching people to use their right to free speech responsibly. But there is another part of me that is profoundly uncomfortable with telling people what they can and cannot say. It's hard to be progressive when both sides of the "progressive" argument have such dire drawbacks. Admittedly anybody who uses racial slurs (as racial slurs) would be thrown out of my class. Is that different from a speech code? I contend that it is. But I am not sure where the line is. As a teacher, when do I move from expecting decorum to censoring? I really don't know the boundaries. The way I figure the best pedagogical choice is just to continue being a tyrant and arbitrarily set boundaries that I myself am allowed to break. That sounds reasonable to me.