When AmeliaRideau roseto speak tothe UW-MadisonFaculty Senate earlythi - PDF document

When AmeliaRideau roseto speak tothe UW-MadisonFaculty Senate earlythis year, political sci-ence professor DonDowns feared theworst. Here, hethought, was a stu-dent with a story ofacademic vulgaritiesso offensive that yearsof effort to abolish thewould be lost with thetelling of her tale.Once Rideauopened her mouth, however, it became clearshe was no Stealth bomber for the high-flyingforces of political correctness. Instead, Rideauwas an accidental poster child for why thecode should be repealed; a witness for anembarrassed defense.A junior enrolled in Professor StandishHenningÕs class on English literature, Rideaucame to the Faculty Senate to complain of hisuse of the word ÒniggardlyÓ Ñ which meansstingy or miserly Ñ in a classroom discussionabout Geoffrey ChaucerÕs medieval classic,ÒThe Canterbury Tales.ÓRideau, who is black, said she was offend-ed to the point of tears because she thoughtHenning had used a racial epithet that soundsa lot like niggardly but which has no relationin meaning or origin. This was in the sameweek that an aide toWashington, D.C.,Mayor AnthonyWilliams was rhetor-ically flogged forusing the same wordÑ niggardly Ñ in aconversation withsome of the mayorÕslenged budget ana-Rather thanchalk it up as a les-son in mistakenhomophony (also notan offensive term, bythe way), Rideautook the classroom incident to another level.She brought three black friends to her nextclass with Henning for Òsupport,Ó and thencited her experience to the Faculty Senate asevidence of why it should retain the 18-year-old faculty speech code.In fact, she argued, the code should bemade even tougher. LetÕs punish professorswho offend during the course of instruction Ñeven if there is no intent to harm.By the time she had completed her vent-ing, Downs and his fellow speech code aboli-tionists were grinning from ear to disbelievingear. Had they tried to plant student testimonyto undermine the speech code, they could not W. S Thomas W. Stillis Associate Editor of the WisconsinState Journal in Madison. Whatever may be the limitations which tram-from other public universities, it is that com-1981 was a diminishing of that higher stan-sions involving gender, race, cultural back- became the question for speech code oppo-climate of political cor-pus, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, code oppo- professor for violatingfreedom. Wisconsin Interest 23 Though both versions were an improve-1981 code, the majority report kept punish-Òunless the instructor has a reasonable peda-technique in question rather than an effica-ÒSuppose a gay student presses a profes-there is a moral basis for such laws,Õ the pro-ÒThis logic encourages mechanical, cow-code should not reach beyond an intent stan-disability, and, second, non-directed com-ments), it hardly matters whether the instruc- Sharpless said. ÒIt pre-punishment provisions and to adopt the fol-protected from discipli-on some college campus-actually talk to their pro- The defeat of UW-MadisonÕs speech codeof political correctnessintellectual trendsetter Wisconsin Interest 25 speech. Shared knowledge, culture and val-