Sources & Extracts

Review this excerpt and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.

Law professor Mari Matsuda has argued that some hate speech should be criminalized. She has also concluded that in some cases it should not be afforded the protection of academic freedom.
Another difficult case is that of the social scientist who makes a case for racial inferiority in an academic setting based on what is presented as scientific evidence. Various theories of genetic predisposition to violence, cultural lag, and a correlation between race and intelligence fall into this category. Critics note that these pseudoscientific theories are racist and ignorant. This raises two separate questions. First, should such views receive an audience and a forum in an academic setting? Second, should we criminalize expressions of such views?
As to the first question, the answer may well be no. Not all views deserve the dignity of an academic forum. Poorly documented, racially biased work does not meet the professional standards required of academic writing. If a writer manages to come up with a theory of racial inferiority supported by evidence acceptable within the relevant discipline, that theory may deserve a forum. Under the principle of academic freedom, ignorant views need not be heard, but unpopular, academically tenable views should be.
Reference: Mari Matsuda, "Public Response to Racist Speech" in Words That Wound, p. 40.