Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) since 1991, addressed the Yale community on Wed., Apr. 10, at the Yale Hillel and on Thurs., Apr. 11 at the Yale Political Union. Topics of discussion included race, gender, and censorship. As the first female president of the controversial organization, Strossen is a self-proclaimed "pro-sex feminist," and the author of the recent book Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. She presently teaches at the New York Law School.
The Yale Herald: Do you feel there are any advantages or disadvantages of being a female president of the ACLU?
Nadine Strossen: All advantages. As an organization we've always defended rights for all people; rights tend to be disproportionately violated when you talk about people who are disempowered or relatively marginalized in the political structure, and that certainly includes women. So speaking as a woman, I can empathize with the problems of discrimination.
YH: What is your reaction to President Clinton's recently passed Communication Decency Act (which aims to censor pornography on the Internet)?
NS: The challenge to the Communication Decency Act is probably our best known lawsuit at the moment. We lobbied against it, and at the very same time we knew there was a good chance it would get passed through Congress, so we were simultaneously preparing a lawsuit. The instant Clinton signed the law, we were in filing a complaint. This case will go to the Supreme Court. What most of the world is unaware of is that more than a dozen states have passed or are on the verge of passing their own versions of the Communications Decency Act. Because of our affiliate structure, we are able to monitor and lobby and litigate against those at the state level as well.
YH: Can you expound on the nature of the ACLU's complaint against Clinton's Communication Decency Act?
NS: Well, it violates the very fundamental rights of free speech, reproductive freedom, right to privacy, to name some examples. It imposes unprecedented, extraordinary censorship on what should be the freest communication medium, making it a federal crime to convey any information that is deemed to be indecent, passively offensive, or any information about abortion.
YH: What aspect of the Internet are you defending?
NS:Even if you accept the rationales the Supreme Court has accepted to justify censorship of TV, they're completely inapplicable online. The major rationale is that TV is an unwanted intruder into the home that assaults children who innocently sitting in the home. It takes initiative to log on to certain sites and to seek out certain information. Also,programs such as Surfwatch and Netnanny allow parents to protect their children from what they do not want them to see. You can satisfy the individual freedom of choice in what to see and what not to see. The protection of children should be facilitated by individual parents and not having the government become the Big Brother and protecting all of us against some allegedly harmful expressions.
YH: How would you define feminism?
NS: To me, feminism is a commitment to equality of opportunity and full human rights, privacy, autonomy, dignity-the whole spectrum of human rights for all people regardless of gender. Having said that, I think, perhaps the term "gender equality," or eliminating gender-based stereotypes in discrimination might be more accurate. I would certainly defend human rights for a man as well as a woman.
YH: What is your stance on pornogrphy?
NS: I recently wrote a book on that topic, based on experience and not just on theory that pornography does more harm than good as far as women's rights are concerned. I absolutely agree that women should not be viewed as objects of any sort including sex objects. How could that agree with feminism as I've described it? I believe we have the right to be full and equal human beings with full access and participation in every sphere of life, one of which is sexual.. Just as men can be sexual beings, I think women can be as well. Censoring pornography undermines, rather than advances, women's fight for equality.
YH: As a feminist, what advice would you give to female Yalies?
NS: I would say, among other things, don't get too panicky about the details of your future. The best things that have happened to me, I could never have planned and have all come about gradually at each stage of my life. As a law professor, I'd like to add this piece of advice-it's really good to take time off between college and the next stage of your education. I regret not doing this.
YH: How do you feel about the Hopwood v. Texas ruling on affirmative action?
NS: It's absolutely frightening. What is at stake is not only equality, but also freedom for the university to determine who is going to be part of its community. Traditionally, universities have tried to create a diverse student body and faculty, looking to factors such as a person's geographic and economic background. To overlook a person's gender, race, and ethnic background is to overlook a major factor in who that person is.
YH: What is your ideal day of rest and relaxation?
NS: This sounds very prosaic, but for someone who travels 250-300 days a year, my ideal day of relaxation is being at my countryhouse which faces a beautiful lake, sitting on the deck looking at the calming lake water, listening to Verdi operas, sipping delicious Cabernet Sauvignon, having my husband stroke me, massage me. I think I should censor myself at this point...
Copyright 1996, The Yale Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Yale Herald, Inc. Write to herald@yale.edu for additional details.