In May 1933, some Germans in Nazi Germany burnt books authored by Jews so as to sever Jewish influence. So when some students at Georgia Southern University gathered around a grill to burn copies of a novel by a Cuban, the obvious comparison was made by some. I submit that the comparison being made is not so obvious or straightforward. Moreover, the comparison sullies the ideal of universities being impartial to the ideas aired even as opinions.
The university spokeswoman, Jennifer Wise, cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as protecting the students, so no action was taken against them. In contrast, the Nazis’ book-burning took place absent any freedom of expression. Nevertheless, book-burning symbolizes the destruction of ideas. Appropriately, Wise wisely added that “book burning does not align with Georgia Southern’s values nor does it encourage the civil discourse and debate of ideas.”[1] In other words, burning objectionable books is part of free speech even though the university frowns on that particular expression.[2]
The balanced university-statement is not flawless, however. The assumption that the students were trying to destroy the author’s ideas by burning just a few copies of a novel does not hold up as no attempt was made to seek out every copy even on the campus. Rather, I submit that the students were angry because the author had insulted them. In other words, the burning was part of something larger in which the blame cannot rightly be put entirely on the students.
According to the student newspaper, a student accused the author of generalizing about “the majority of white people being privileged.”[3] This is a fair accusation. Asked in the question and answer time following the author’s talk why she had come, she replied to a student, “I came here because I was invited and I talked about white privilege because it’s a real thing that you are actually benefitting from right now in even asking this question.”[4] The author assumed rather than suggested that white privilege exists, and furthermore claimed that that student was benefitting from it even in being able to ask the question. What if the merits of the student had gotten him or her to the point of being able to ask the question? Of course, he or she felt insulted. If it is difficult to comprehend why the author’s comment was insulting, consider how the claim, “You are only here because of affirmative action” might feel to a minority student.
The author described the ensuing interaction in the Q & A session as “hostile, surreal and strange,” but she failed to acknowledge her own contribution to it.[5] Russell Willerton, chairman of the school’s Department of Writing and Linguistics, pointed to it in saying, “Last night’s discussion with the author devolved into accusations of her demonstrating racism against white people.”[6] Whether racism is or is not implicit in charges of white privilege being made to Caucasian students, the charges themselves are at the very least insulting rather than geared to the sort of open discussion that the author ostensibly thought was necessary. It’s like the kid who throws a stick then hides behind a tree and chastises the kids on the other side for not being open to civil discourse.
Therefore, I submit the comparison with Nazi book-burning does not hold. The problem can be re-stated as the following: What should a university’s position be toward a speaker who is intent on insulting students? Of course, an upcoming speaker can hid this intent, but someone in the administration, such as a department chairperson, could be present on the stage during the talks and intervene accordingly. Students would not feel the need to find their own means of venting their anger. To be sure, stopping hurtful insults at the moment they are being leveled is not easy. Some ideas couched in rational thought may be objectionable to some people. Perhaps a distinguishing feature is the amount of ratiocination leading up to such an idea; typically the intent to insult is delivered without much thought behind it, as the intent is not the rational pursuit of ideas. Pre-talk discussions with likely speakers yet to be formally invited can be helpful in this regard.
[1]
Amir Vera and Natalie Johnson, “Georgia
College Students Burned the Books of a Latina Author,” CNN.com, October 12,
2019. Readers bothered by my use of wisely after Wise can feel free to burn
this essay even though that might entail burning their computers. Seriously,
the advent of computers means that printing out and burning paper copies of
writings does not destroy the ideas, which still live on the internet and in
computers.
[2] Fortunately,
the university achieved such a balanced approach; at some
other universities in the United States, a university police-force might
have swooped in, with guns drawn, to surround the heinous grill. Such
police-state universities are inherently inimical to the free expression of
ideas because the motif of force is so salient.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
