Have you ever shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Unless you're just mean, or else colossally bored by the movie you're watching, I somehow doubt it. Besides, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that our hallowed right to free speech does not include the liberty to utter carefully-timed inducements to human stampede. But, really, the right to say what you like is pretty broad. Especially at Yale, there is very little that will cause the authorities to raise an eyebrow or rattle the handcuffs.
When Benno Schmidt was president of this University, political correctness was bound in chains, and almost every sort of consideration had to take a back seat to free speech. But the pendulum is swinging the other way, I gather. Do or say anything which touches primed racial or gender nerves, and you invite a fiery blow-up. Take the case of the "Ten Little Indians" incident of last Saturday, in which freshman members of the women's lacrosse team, dressed up as the 10 little Indians of a famed nursery rhyme, marched in a line about campus as part of an initiation ritual.
Personally, I witnessed the "Indians" in their progress up Chapel Street and thence down York towards Elm, while out for a walk Saturday evening. At the time, I wondered who they could possibly be, but here at Yale one is used to seeing oddly-clad groups performing strange rituals at all hours of the night. The young women in no way displayed the air of people bent on being hurtful or mocking. There was a good deal of giggling and good-natured hooting to be heard as they turned the corner and headed toward Elm Street.
But some sacred cows may not have their tails twisted, even in jest. Imagine my surprise, upon perusing Tuesday's edition of the Yale Daily News, to discover that "Lacrosse Initiation Rite Sparks Protests." [4/2/96, YDN] A number of Native American students, reading bigotry in the team's actions, chalked up the campus Monday in response, all the while making dire pronouncements about the state of racism at Yale.
"It was highly insensitive, offensive, and hurtful," one Yale junior was quoted as saying. "I was unbelievably hurt and almost broken that I could walk out of my house and see a group of women dressed up mocking that which is so spiritual to me." Ah, well. The dubious nature of the charge of "mocking" aside, how the young lady in question managed to be "unbelievably hurt and almost broken" escapes me. I could understand if freedom riders in the segregated South, say, had felt "unbelievably hurt and almost broken" when they had fire hoses and attack dogs turned on them. But witnessing a tongue-in-cheek gag by Yale lacrosse players? Have I missed something? Now, the situation would be very different had the team engaged in its actions with anything like the intent ascribed to it by the angry Native American activists. But to me, no such ugly intent was remotely discernible. But the protestors have made up their minds, despite assurances from the team's captain that any offense was completely unintentional. What can we conclude?
I think a sort of thought experiment would be useful, to hold up the protestors' reasoning to the light of analogy and see how it fares. The experiment would run thus: My father's Scottish ancestors used to be periodically cut down in numbers by invading English armies, forced to live and work in poor conditions by their Saxon overlords, and were long denied their political liberties-much the same as Native Americans. A man could mope about grinding his teeth in rage over the slaughters at Holmedon, Worcester, and Culloden Field. But why should he?
Would it do for me to fly into a rage when a comedian dons a kilt for a cheap laugh? Should I dissolve in tears whenever someone assumes a Scottish accent to portray someone "cheap"? I should grin and appreciate the intent behind the action. I should go on living. My detractors will rejoin: It's not the same thing. But it is-the only difference is that the systematic oppression of Scots is more removed (for most Americans) in time and space. But the issues at stake are identical.
Hurtful speech by the women's lacrosse team? Risu solvuntur tabulae, as Horace has it in the Epistles-"Charge dismissed with ridicule." It is impossible to dispel the distinct impression that those bent out of shape over this issue were on a hair-trigger, awaiting only a faint spark to flash into flame. A person is welcome to walk about with paper-thin skin, to prick up his ears constantly for insult where there is none. But he should not then be surprised if he finds his skin in tatters and his ears burning.
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.