Academic Freedom....according to Liberals

Free Speech at UNC-Asheville
Mike S. Adams

August 19, 2005

Last week, I wrote an article criticizing UNC Asheville for showing a porn movie based on the "research" of Asian American Studies professor Darrell Hamamoto. UNCA Director of Public Information, Merianne Epstein [email protected], offered this defense of the taxpayer-supported porn movie screening:
[list] …(W)e believe that universities exist to provide a safe forum for the expression and consideration of different points of view and the exploration of the robust marketplace ideas and beliefs; that the search for truth and knowledge is dependent upon a climate that fosters careful exploration of difficult topics; and that the only outcome of censorship is ignorance and prejudice. We defend with unhesitating vigor the right of our students to be free from censorship as they exercise critical thinking and pursue thoughtful dialogue in the exploration of the complicated issues of our time. [/list]As beautiful as that was, I am about to offer a restatement of UNCA's articulate defense. In order to fully comprehend my restatement, it will be necessary to take a longer look at Dr. Hamamoto's research. I learned a lot about it from reading his marvelous essay entitled "The Joy F--- Club." Some highlights of what I learned follow:

Dr. Hamamoto says that "(w)ithout prurient intent" he has his college students "contemplate and discuss the content of their sexual fantasy life" and to imagine what "types of faces and bodies" they conjure when trying to reach orgasm.

Discussing student sexual fantasies in class, teaches Dr. Hamamoto that Asian American students overwhelmingly fantasize about "Euroamericans."He dubs this Asian American focus on "Euroamericans" as "a cross-generational fetishization of the White master race by Asian Americans."

He explains that the in-class sexual fantasy exercise has, in effect, shown him his true purpose in life. "It is out of this classroom experience that I began thinking about ways to destabilize the hegemonic system of sex/race/power, wherein the denial of unalloyed sexual desire and carnal pleasure to Yellow people is coextensive with their social subordination."

I also learned that "The historical legacy of U.S. imperial conquest, neocolonial occupation, dislocation, exclusion, relocation, and the depredation of global capitalism, have played a material role in shaping the multiform sexuality of Asian American men and women. Restrictive immigration legislation directed specifically against Asians has done much to distort and even prevent family formation."

Similarly, Hamamoto informed me that "Out of the legal, legislative, and moralistic strategies brought to bear in the regulation of Asian American sexuality, a system of psychosocial dominance has evolved that, to varying degrees, has been internalized by the objects of social control. In addition, Asian Americans along with members of the dominant society have been immersed in racial supremacist ideology from cradle to grave."

The Asian love master is at his finest when he proclaims that the "psychosocial domination of Asian Americans, although never complete and always contested, is compatible with the interests of ruling elites who hold political and economic dominion over communities of color, which are constrained to occupy the stratum of super-exploited laborers who create social wealth for capital. At the same time, the White working class maintains its marginal advantage over non-White competitors on the basis of superordinate racial identity within a segmented labor market. With the regulation of erotic desire and expression inextricably linked to a comprehensive system of political-economic and sociocultural control, Asian Americans have grappled with a psychosexual self-alienation that stems from a racialized sexuality shaped and sometimes deformed by hostile social forces." I could not have said it better myself!

To reinforce his main thesis, the professor states that "Asian American male performers are almost nonexistent in straight video porn, again reflecting their sexuo-erotic subjection within the White supremacist complex."

And, finally, the leader of the Yellow Porn movement tells us that "In revisiting and reclaiming Asian erotic arts traditions developed over centuries, by drawing from a demonstrated history of visual resistance, through the integration of the radical cultural politics of Asian American independent film movement, a Yellow porno practice can help recuperate a sexuality that has been distorted by the internalization of core racist values and beliefs that reach into the depths of individual psychology. Like other expressive forms, pornography is but one manifestation of the irrepressible urge to explore the oceanic possibilities inherent in the sexuality of our species-being. To engage more specifically in an Asian American porno practice is to take self-determined control of an unfixed, variable, malleable, but thoroughly racialized human sexuality, shaped and constrained over time by politically oppressive forces. I harbor no illusions that a self-conscious porno practice alone is sufficient to the task of destabilizing a near-hegemonic system of sex/race/power. But an Asian American cultural politics grounded in a radical jouissance that gives rise to the release of libidinal energy will remain an indispensable resource upon which to draw in the greater struggle against individual and group oppression."

Upon closer examination of Hamamoto's work, it appears that UNC-Ashville really has the following to say about free speech:
[list]UNCA believes that universities exist to provide a safe forum for the expression and consideration of liberal points of view that help to legitimize the concept of moral relativism. UNCA also believes that the search for truth is irrelevant because the university abandoned long ago the idea of "truth." UNCA seeks to nurture a climate that fosters careful exploration of even the most absurd and inane topics; as long as they are presented from a perspective that is stridently anti-American and treats the problems of all non-whites as stemming from white racism. If you ridicule us, we will falsely accuse you of censorship as we defend the indefensible. We will attack you personally with the accusation that you are both ignorant and prejudiced. We will defend the most revolting idiocy under the guise of protecting our students from censorship. At the same time, we will promulgate the myth that we are exposing our students to critical thinking and fostering the pursuit of thoughtful dialogue. These issues are not complicated. You will fund our mission, despite its lack of intellectual diversity, integrity, and honesty. Because we are more enlightened than you, this matter is not open to further discussion or debate.[/list]-- Mike S. Adams will speak at N.C. State on August 30th. Details can be found on his website (www.DrAdams.org).

squinney wrote:

Society needs a fixed code to live by ...

That's why we have laws. Laws that don't infringe on religion or personal beliefs.

What is the foundation for many of our laws such as murder, and theft?

You could of course adopt Sharia(Muslim) Law which commands certain punishment for certain offenses such as stoning , cutting off hands, etc. They have adopted a different code for a different society which is perfectly acceptable as long as they don't attempt to force their code down my throat.

The 10 commandments are everything the United States are not
by Marc Berard

There are many different battles across the United States of America concerning the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings/grounds. The posting is illegal as it violates the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause. This does not deter those seeking to have it posted on any available surface. To sneak around the First Amendment many have adopted the tactic of calling it an "historical document" and "the basis for our system of law", often trying to post it as part of a larger display with historical documents. To me, this is like trying to make a marijuana plant legally acceptable by planting daisies and gardenias around it and calling it a botanical display.

But does their main argument hold any water? Is American law based upon the 10 Commandments? Let us examine them.

1. You shall have no other gods before me

This runs directly counter to the first amendment. This commandment demands obedience to a single, specific god. The first amendment gives the right for worshiping any or none.

2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Once again, this runs directly against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is also some dispute as to what counts as a graven image. The catholic church has statues and stained glass windows, while other christian denominations consider these iconography, and therefore in violation of this commandment. Some religious orders even go so far as to be against non-religious images and photographs. If the law prohibited non-religious images that would then be a violation of freedom of speech/expression.

3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain

Now this commandment is directly counter to the freedom of speech. For being the 'basis for our laws' about one third of the commandments run directly counter to constitutional rights.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.

While there is a tradition of seven day week, there is no law mandating that anyone keep the sabbath. People are free to work on any day they wish. Also the tradition here is for a 5 day work week, with two days off on the weekend. Does that mean we are in violation of the commandment? Should we now give up our Saturdays and report to work?

5. Honor your father and your mother

Frankly, some parents might not be all that worthy of honor. There is no law requiring a person to honor their parents. In fact there are laws to protect children from abusive parents, and children can be taken away from unfit parents.

6. You shall not kill

A good commandment, but hardly original. Laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before hearing about the 10 commandments. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.

7. You shall not commit adultery

A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. However, there is no federal law against it. State laws will vary on the subject. If you define adultery as between any couple not married to one another, even if they are both single, then there are even fewer laws against it, and the state laws can probably be challenged. There was not too long ago a case in California: A man and a woman were brought up on charges for living together. The charges were brought up by his ex-girlfriend who found religion, ignoring that they lived together for a while. The district attorney went to the court to have the law stricken from the books.

8. You shall not steal

Like #6, good but hardly original.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

like #6 and #8 good but not original.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's

Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.

Postlude

Out of the 10 commandments, 4 (1, 2, 3, 10) are counter to American laws. 3 (6, 8, 9) are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history. 2 (4, 5) are not a part of our laws. And 1 (7) may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning #7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce.

Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".