The Blogora: The Rhetoric Society of America

 

Privileging Speech?


Submitted by Adria on September 30, 2008 - 3:29pm


I appreciate Josh Gunn's latest words on the NCA Boycott, so much so I'm linking directly to them.

I've been relatively quiet about this issue because it IS political and because CRITNET has covered almost every perspective one could take on the NCA boycott issue.

But I shall muse anyway, and hope it means something. Lately I wonder if this debate surrounding the NCA affair is illustrative of the more problematic practices of privileging speech. As Josh points out, this year's NCA debate seemed to start with the Horowitz debacle. The idea of the protest then upset many: why can't we talk it out? The idea of a boycott now bothers many more: I was told by a professor I respect very much that (s)he would not move our panel to an alternate location out of respect for those that wish to attend: presenting papers is not about a CV hit, it's about the discussions we raise. I have heard similar sentiments: our research on say, prison issues, is important and needs to be heard. If we move our panel to an alternate location and there is not adequate notification to the NCA group, then we are simply talking to ourselves.

Under the Habermasian ideology of critical rational debate, Horowitz's presence at our conference makes perfect sense. Similarly, under the assumption that talk is privileged over action (or is it's own kind of action), then maintaining the conference at the original site in San Diego makes perfect sense. And makes a very clear political statement, whether that is our intent or not.

If we do not recognize that scholarship is inextricably linked to the world in which it occurs, then are we not still only talking to ourselves?

The AAUP wrote, "The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real liberty of the individual. . . . One of [the university's] most characteristic functions in a democratic society is to help make public opinion more self-critical and more circumspect, to check the more hasty and unconsidered impulses of popular feeling, to train the democracy to the habit of looking before and after."

But with the Horowitz invite and now this, I can't help wondering if we are privileging the speech of an institution over the questioning actions of its critics.

Submitted by Anonymous on September 30, 2008 - 8:33pm.

From the very start, I've been troubled by NCA's posture toward this controversy. Even before the boycott became a visible force, NCA's response to Manchester's donation to Prop 8 was that it undermined the organization's commitments to freedom of expression, deliberation, etc. Qua? How about a direct attack on the rights of a sizable portion of NCA's membership? Throughout this debacle, NCA has adopted this high minded tone at the expense of confronting the plain fact that they have effectively made their conference a less safe space for the LGBTQ community, not to mention labor and their supporters.

Bryan M.