Chancellor Block must be consistent on intolerant speech, publicly address Professor Bainbridge’s blog statements
By Editorial Board
April 17, 2011 11:20 p.m.
Intolerant words are intolerant no matter the speaker.
UCLA’s leaders have made it clear that such demeaning remarks have no place at this institution, especially after its condemnation of the viral “Asians in the Library” YouTube video last month.
That is what makes the administration’s subdued reaction to the comments made by law Professor Stephen Bainbridge all the more surprising. The administration needs to be more consistent in responding to intolerance.
In a blog post last month, Bainbridge described a FedEx customer service representative as a “moron with an impenetrable accent” after he received subpar help. He also asked, “What Third World shithole do they have him penned up in?” His blog, professorbainbridge.com, is recommended by the American Bar Association Journal as one of the top 100 legal blogs.
Although Bainbridge has since apologized and removed the offensive language from his blog, he wrote that he did not find the comments offensive but regretted offending anyone.
The dean of the law school stated in a letter to several concerned student groups that Bainbridge’s views did not represent those of the law school and that his views were posted on a personal blog.
Sound familiar?
The morning after Alexandra Wallace’s YouTube video went viral, Chancellor Gene Block blasted Wallace in a video response and a campuswide letter. The views expressed in the video did not represent those of the UCLA community, the letter stated. But Block and the administration added fuel to the fire, putting Wallace at the mercy of Internet commentators and bloggers by calling her comments hateful and insensitive.
Days later, the administration announced they would not punish Wallace for her comments because they did not violate the student code of conduct and she was protected by her freedom of speech.
The group of law students who expressed concern over Bainbridge’s blog post also called on the chancellor for action, but received no reply.
The reasons for these disparate reactions are inconceivable to this board.
Of course, Bainbridge should not be punished for exercising his freedom of speech. But the university must publicly address his inappropriate comments and reprimand him, even though his offensive commentary may not have been as widely publicized as that of Wallace. Students and professors alike represent the university, and the administration should hold both parties to the same standards.
Bainbridge’s comments, made on a blog closely associated with his academic life at UCLA, reflected poorly on the university’s efforts to promote acceptance and diversity.
It is not enough to simply reject his comments to those who take issue with it. Instead, the administration should have taken bolder action in opposing speech viewed as “hateful and ignorant.”
