[csaa-forum] Against Racism: A Public Letter For an Ethics of Speech

[Amanda Wise]

**Apologies for Cross-Posting**


Dear Colleague,

Please find below (and attached) a letter that we are requesting you to
support.  The letter denounces the racist comments articulated by
Associate Professor Andrew Fraser, Department of Public Law, Macquarie
University; it marks the violence that these racist views have already
generated, and calls for an ethics of speech founded on principles of
responsibility and accountability.

We are hoping to publish this letter in next week's The Australian
Higher Education Supplement, in response to the extensive coverage
Fraser has received in this newspaper.

If you wish to have your signature added to this letter, please reply by
5pm Sunday 14 August.
Thank you.

Amanda Wise
Centre for Research on Social Inclusion
amanda.wise at scmp.mq.edu.au


_______________________________________________________________
For an Ethics of Free Speech

Over the last few weeks, Andrew Fraser, an Associate Professor in the
Department of Public Law at Macquarie University, has advocated racist
views from a number of public platforms. His views fall squarely within
the category of biological racism (see accompanying letter by Dr Robert
Norton). He has claimed, amongst other things, that Africans are
congenitally inferior in terms of their intellectual capacity and that
they are naturally prone to violence. He has exhorted his fellow
Australians to stop further African and Asian migration to Australia as
he believes this nation is at risk of what he terms 'national suicide.'

In the flurry of media coverage that Fraser's views have received, both
his supporters and many of his critics have sought to legitimate his
views by accommodating them under the rubric of 'free speech.' Free
speech, like motherhood or meat pie, is held to be one of the
inalienable truths of Australian society. As a community of academics we
wish to make the following essential points about the ethics and limits
of free speech:

* The freedom to speak is not absolute. Racism, specifically in the form
of racial vilification of particular groups is not 'free speech'. It is
a criminal offence under our laws and it cannot be sanctioned in any
quarter.

* Some people are more free to speak than others. Free speech is not an
abstraction. In practice it is exercised by some and not by others. The
freedom to speak is enjoyed by those who have access * through
linguistic, educational, institutional and economic power  -- to the
various forums that either disseminate or silence our speech. Witness
the number of column inches that Fraser and his supporters have
received, in graphic contrast to the fewer than handful of articles in
which the communities he racially vilifies have had the opportunity to
respond (see, for example, The Australian HES 10/08/05).

* It is dishonest to suggest that free speech is equally available to
all. Some of us are entrusted with the ability to speak authoritatively,
and to be listened to, because of the roles we occupy in society. This
is why it is imperative for other academics to denounce Fraser's
continuing capitalisation on his academic title and institutional
affiliation. Fraser has no academic research history in the field of
race and ethnicity studies.

* As much as sticks and stones, words break bones. The racist views
advocated by Fraser have already resulted in physical as well as other
kinds of violence. Sudanese-Australians, singled out for vilification by
Fraser, have been violently bashed and attacked. In one instance in
Toowoomba, a Sudanese-Australian family was driven out of town by the
repeated assaults from neo-Nazi gang. The gang has warned that it will
now intensify its race-hate campaign (The Australian 23/07/05).

* Free speech is not a matter for the individual alone.  We can see the
limitations of this position as soon as we place students, largely
ignored in the debate, at the centre of the issue. We are not just
dealing with the sentiments of an individual, but with the practices of
a figure who exercises power and authority, vested in him by an
institution, over students. His assessments help to determine their life
chances in the future as well as their capacity to learn effectively in
the present. How does a person who believes that people are unequally
genetically endowed with intelligence and violence undertake to fairly
and equally assess students who come from different parts of the world? 
If a teacher holds such views how can they treat students fairly on the
basis of merit?

It is timely to begin to talk about an ethics of speech founded on
principles of responsibility and accountability.  An ethics of speech
demands that as speakers we take responsibility for unequal relations of
power and resources -- such as those that mark the relationship between
a university professor and Sudanese refugees fleeing violence, poverty
and persecution.

If free speech is to not to become the last refuge for race fanatics and
hate mongers, in the context of an already volatile climate, it needs to
be articulated hand-in-hand with an ethics of responsibility. Join us in
denouncing the travesty of a 'free speech' free of ethics.







-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: For an Ethics.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 32768 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20050812/6821147f/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Still Our Most Dangerous .doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 36352 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20050812/6821147f/attachment-0001.obj