We have been following controversies over free speech on campuses, particularly in recent weeks involving faculty and student critics of the ongoing protests or the “Defund The Police” movement. Indeed, I have a column on those concerns this morning. The most recent controversy concerns a Catholic chaplain, Daniel Moloney, who has resigned as chaplain for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His removal followed his reference to the criminal record of George Floyd and equivocating comments on the problem of racism in police departments. His case raises the question of whether the free speech concerns should be treated differently for non-academic positions.
Moloney was cited for a June 7th email to the Tech Catholic Community, a group of Catholic students on campus. In the email, Moloney denounced the killing and the racism in society. However, he referred to Floyd’s criminal record and that fact that he had drugs in his system at the time of the arrest before stating “we do not kill such people. He committed sins, but we root for sinners to change their lives and convert to the Gospel.” Moloney also stated that we still do not know if the killing was based on racism or whether racism is a “major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.”
MIT’s Dean for Student Life, Suzy Nelson, declared that Moloney’s message “contradicted the Institute’s values” and “was deeply disturbing” and that “by devaluing and disparaging George Floyd’s character.”
The Archdiocese of Boston declared that Moloney’s comments “were wrong and by his resignation he accepts the hurt they have caused.” Moloney himself apologized but the Archdiocese reportedly told Moloney to resign from his role as chaplain, according to the Boston Globe.
I do not agree with the email and I can see why many found it upsetting. We all need to consider the deep pain felt by the Floyd killing and the continuing struggle with racism in our society. However, we often discuss views that we may not agree with on this blog due to its emphasis on free speech. There remains an unresolved free speech issue (which was not addressed by either the university or the Archdiocese) on whether it is permissible to contest widely held views of this case or the underlying issues.
This case raises the issue of whether certain positions warrant or allow for greater speech regulation. Moloney is not an academic but a chaplain. His position demands the obvious religious foundation to minister to the community. It also requires that the whole community feels that he is empathetic and understanding, particularly at a time of such profound pain for so many. That makes this different from the academic or student controversies that we have discussed.
Once again, the concern is the lack of a clear standard for faculty and staff as well as students. It is not stated if the school and church was chastising Moloney for giving opinions on such issues or for giving the wrong opinions. Free speech demands bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of understanding as to what speech will be proscribed or punished. There is a growing chilling effect on free speech as professors, staff, and students are disciplined for stating opposing views on these issues.
The barbarians are literally at the gates of GW and JT is having to watch in speech. I think the decapitation of GW’s head was a wake-up call. However, I think the chaplain has the right to his opinion. I have watched every tape they have made available and they did check Floyd out before they took him to the 2nd SUV. By that time they had his criminal history.
t
Moloney’s remarks were perfectly reasonable. He’s been removed because the world in which we live is run by sh!ts. If you find a decent person in higher ed administration, odds are they’re the comptroller or director of physical plant or maybe the registrar. Most certainly, that person is not the provost or the dean of students. As for the Catholic hierarchy, there are very few these days who are demonstrably suitable for the positions they’re in. Lincoln, Nebraska had a capable Bishop (now retired). Arlington, Va. did at one time (he died in 1998). Sean Patrick O’Malley is inadequate, he’s just not as surreally inadequate as the two men who preceded him as Archbishop of Boston.
This was not a difficult case. The criminal record of the suspect is relevant in that it offers a reasonable explanation for his actions. Those actions include resisting arrest, battery on 2 police officers, and the use of what the state of Georgia considers a deadly weapon against the officers. Doing that is usually a way to almost guarantee the police will shoot you, and rightfully so.
The push to rename Yale is growing in strength.
I don’t really care if Yale was a slave trader. But I do want to see the increasingly corrupt university take a big bite out of the same crap sandwich they have been serving to the rest of us.
And I won’t have to listen to anyone saying they went to Yale anymore.
What goes around, comes around.
I told Paul, earlier, let’s make is “Ale 🍺 University.”
It is the most economical efficient, bc you just remove a letter, and Boom, you’re Done.
Problem solved.
And to make things fair, let’s make Harvard, “Arvard University,” which is technically how it is said with the Bostonian accent anyhow.
Done, and done.
WTF??????????????
Interesting comments from a group which may be surmised as being among the brightest on the planet. My favorite by far is from “debinrye” – “panderdemic” is not yet enshrined in the Urban Dictionary – but it should be. It’s the most accurate description I’ve seen yet of this entire show -IMHO. Sorry, but I can’t subscribe to Dr Turley’s interpretation – for those who govern their emotions with reason, NO speech should be proscribed.
People get caught up in the merits and neglect the principle. I don’t care if Mr. Floyd was a serial killer, he did not deserve to be killed the way he was. It was sickening to watch. So much so that I watched very little of it but enough to see that at some point he had given up all resistance.
I don’t care if the Chaplin was being racist or not. I don’t care if his comments were based on solid premises or not. Once we start to punish people for speech and thought, we are but a small step away from the reign of Terror.
Just look at what forms of expression have been declared verboten over the past 10 or 15 years and know that it is only a matter of time before your speech is a reason for cancellation.
“I don’t care if Mr. Floyd was a serial killer, he did not deserve to be killed the way he was.”
On the other hand, it would have been okay if he died the usual way by being shot down by another black criminal.
Nobody marches or riots about that.
Now there’s something to think about.
He died of a heart attack brought on by illegal drug use. The ME stated that in his 10 page report.
Snake- Yes, I have been saying much the same in earlier threads.
Chauvin had a duty of care the moment he took him into custody.
He is more than obligated not to kill Floyd, he is actually obligated to prevent his death if possible.
This likely a reckless indifference homocide where there is a duty of care.
It does not matter if Floyd would have died had he never been taken into custody.
It is mitigating, but probably not not exonerating if there is nothing Chauvin could have done to save Floyd, because he was obligated to try and failed.
Floyd likely died because he chose to fight and resist arrest while burdened with several serious medical conditions. His fault. if I have a heart attack shoveling snow it isn’t the fault of the snow or the shovel. Chauvin wasn’t in the role of Floyd’s mommy.
“Chauvin wasn’t in the role of Floyd’s mommy.”
Once Chauvin detained him – he was”
I am deeply disturbed by the cop bashing.
Seeking reform is one thing,
but if we destroy the morale of police or worse drive them out.
We will pay the price.
NYPD just disbanding the anti-crime unit.
There is probably no unit that statistically appears more “systemically racist”.
There is no unit that has raised tensions between police and blacks more.
There is also no unit that is responsible for reducing the death of blacks more.
What should we do ? Should we leave in place a force that actually save black lives – by incredibly large numbers ?
Or should we disband the unit that is single handedly responsible for the most significant racial tension in this country ?
Apparently the answer is that black feelings matter, Black Lives don’t.
I do not beleive the police or any other institution in the US is “systemically racist”.
But I do beleive that the police are systemically assholes.
They are also the assholes that keep us all safe.
Rates of violent crime have dropped dramatically over my life time.
There are lots of police reforms I want – probably every single specifically identified reform – but none of this defund the police BS.
But I am not going to trade higher crime for warmer and fuzzier police.
I want police that are both effective and not assholes.
But I am likely to tolerate delays in reducing assholery to avoid increased crime.
Further I think that we can figure out how to have a police force that we respect, and that feels respected,
without increasing crime or having a high asshole quitient.
I think that the Chauvin murder of Floyd and the mess that followed has had one really major impact.
It is likely that we have cracked the thin blue line. The police are embarrased. I am hoping that the Chauvin’s will not be tolerated in the future. That more police will presure their brothers to be both effective and decent.
We will see.
But one place it starts is:
When you detain someone – you assume total responsibility for them. PERIOD.
You are liable – and in some cases criminally.
Much of what you mention is mitigation for Chauvin.
It does not change his guilt it just reduces the seriousness of the offense.
Chauvin is guilty even if nothing he could have done would have helped.
It was not Chauvin’s obligation to save Floyd. But it was his obligation to try.
Failure to try when you have taken someone into custody and they die is a CRIME.
A citizen has the duty to obey the law.
A citizen who does not obey the law may have no expectation that an officer of the law will obey the law.
If criminals abandon the laws of man and resort to the laws of physics, those same criminals must expect that officers of the law will similarly abandon the laws of man and resort to the laws of physics.
If the outcome of any situation is in doubt, all means may be employed to erase any and all ambiguity.
There can be no law for the lawless until such time as they are, once again, under the law.
“A citizen who does not obey the law may have no expectation that an officer of the law will obey the law.”
Nope.
If the police do not obey the law – we are lawless. Their duty is not conditional on others obeying the law.
ti317 – oh yes, and you should see what they do in other countries across the earth.
I have seen the videos, and I can say, it is NOT pretty, especially in those anti-free speech countries.
Yikes!
Warning: This is disturbing, do not watch if you have a heart condition or other sensitivities.
Here is just one example of how justice is done in other countries:
https://twitter.com/Trends_Central/status/1168547082824634372?s=20
Turley: “Free speech demands bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of understanding as to what speech will be proscribed or punished.”
When you say that you have already lost free speech.
Young is right
but in a deteriorating situation such as this, we still would like to have some bright line rules so we don’t get clipped
they don’t want any such rules because the aim is to get us all in the end. they want us to run our mouths off. sometimes free speech these days is akin to the time when Mao said “let a thousand revolutionary experiments bloom” and then a few years later he was locking the “capitalist roaders” up with the help of his Red Guards.
he was just fakin, see!
Here is a bright line, a couple of them in fact.
If you are inciting criminal activity knowing it is likely to be a acted upon you can be arrested and charged with inciting criminal activity.
If what you are saying offends everyone but does not invite criminal conduct then no problem.
Same principal translated into a actual acts.
Burn a mosque, go to prison.
Burn a Koran, who cares?
Professor Turley,
“I do not agree with the email and I can see why many found it upsetting.”
What made you disagree with the email? What about the email makes it upsetting?
The letter and the response to it magnifies the very problems we are observing amongst the protesters, police, the media. Charity is naught to be found in far too many circumstances (at least those emphasized by the media). The worst *must* be assumed. Treating your fellow man as deeply flawed, a sinner, yet one still worthy of being treated with humanity and dignity is desperately needed on all sides.
Exactly! What the heck is wrong or upsetting with the email? Speaking the truth? Shame on Mr. Turley and the Archdiocese of Denver who asked him to resign.
Yep, agree here. What was so “upsetting?”
JT has to write that or the mob will come after him. He may tall us he believes in free speech, to bad he is too scared to use it.
I would like to see a side by side comparison of George Floyd and David Dorn both black. Let us look at their contributions to society and their families over the years and see which one we would like as part of our own family. Then think about the celebration of Floyd vs the lack of celebration for Dorn and the other more a dozen deaths that have occurred due to this ‘celebration over Floyd’s death’.
There are a lot of sick and unintelligent people out there. I would expect every member of this blog to be able to recognize the difference between good and bad, but about half seem to lack that ability.
That would be an interesting comparison. Instead, Wall Street Journal did one comparing George Floyd to the cop who killed him. TBH, I didn’t even read it because I don’t find the comparison relevant.
Sounds as relevant as Colin Kaepernick being compared to Pat Tillman.
The principal beneficiary of freedom of expression is not the expressor, but the expressees, those who listen to or read the expressor’s ideas, reflect upon them, and form opinions and judgments about them. That many people in the MIT community and elsewhere criticize what Father Moloney wrote proves the foregoing proposition. The beliefs of these critics, who disagree with Moloney, were strengthened by their reflection upon Moloney’s comments. When opinions such as Moloney’s are suppressed, people who agree and who disagree with him are deprived of the opportunity of thinking about his opinion. If we are to maintain a republican government in which ultimately ordinary people rule, then ordinary people must have the opportunity and avail themselves of the opportunity to consider diverse opinions, and that’s why banning “politically ‘incorrect'” expression is a grave mistake.
Dr. T – I thought you believed in the Constitution and free speech. Equally important, i though you believed in critical thinking and socratic questioning. I am so upset that you think this priest’s email was worthy of anything other than thoughtful consideration. This is just another attempt by the left, progressives, and Democrats to shut down free speech and religion. DISGUSTING that you even try to throw it any cover.
Don’t you get it? JT’s livelihood is on the line. He is just a puppet now. He talks free speech but is too scared to use it. Te mob owns him just like our politicians.
Reality is painful for those who live in fantasy. There is such a difference between the two. Reality recognizes that there is reason to believe that Floyd’s killing had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with two men hating each other. There is reason to believe that the drugs in Floyd’s system may have contributed to his decision to resist arrest. But these two possible realities conflict with the fantasy in which wide-spread looting, burning, and even killing are justified. For those in the fantasy world, I have a lot of questions. I would like to know why blacks are the only racial or ethnic group that riots when one of their criminals is killed by police. We whites or Hispanics or Jews don’t do it when one of our criminals are killed by police. I want to know why democrats and so many snowflakes on campuses across the country support a racist organization like BLM that openly calls for the murder of police and that is so obviously a fraud. I want to know why so many whites are consumed with guilt over something in which they had no part. I want to know why monuments are being torn down by people whose collective character is not and never will be a match for the individual courage of the people the monuments honor. I want to know why the American descendants of the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery are not being identified so they too can be condemned and their memories erased. I want to know why such huge percentages of blacks continue to vote for democrats. I understand why black “leaders” do– Al Sharpton knows there’s money to be made and lots of it. But why ordinary black citizens? I wish there was an adult on the other side capable of answering any of these questions.
” I would like to know why blacks are the only racial or ethnic group that riots when one of their criminals is killed by police. ”
A good question. But it will never be answered by those supporting such riotous behavior.
I can answer your questions! So that the Democratic Party Narrative can be supported and the Democratic Party stay in power! That is what all the bee-ess is about. Electing Democrats.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
HonestLawyer,
“Reality is painful for those who live in fantasy.”
Reality is painful. Those who dislike the truth retreat into fantasy.
I love the irony of that concept in a great fantasy film:
https://youtu.be/ThDwS79HPhs
There is a level of cowardice in the university establishment’s reaction to the chaplain’s very carefully worded missive. It reminds one of the USSR under Stalin, when no one wanted to be the first to stop clapping. It reminds one of the McCarthy era when a call for equality might get one blacklisted and ruined.
However, the Chaplain’s attempt at neutralizing the event through sharing shortcomings and ignoring statistics illustrating racism, is much more than inappropriate at this time.
Issac,
What statistics did he ignore?
Moloney also stated that we still do not know if the killing was based on racism or whether racism is a “major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.”
For anyone to state that ‘we still do not know if the killing was based on racism…’ illustrates someone completely out of touch with statistical reality. Take a Venn diagram of racism, one circle. Take another circle as police brutality. Statistically they overlap, and the result statistically illustrates almost twice as much police brutality on Blacks. This ‘we still don’t know’ routine is the same as the ‘No charges have been laid yet, the officers are under investigation.’ The demonstrations fixed that: All racist police officers dismissed, charged with crimes, and the main racist cop charged with murder. Yet ‘we still do not know…’
Isaac, face lights up, hoping for an auto-da-fe for a priest
Issac,
That Venn diagram concept is way off-base. Where is your evidence that racists are more likely to be police officers?
Blacks, statistically, live at a higher rate in single parent and impoverished homes. This, statistically, puts them at significantly higher risk of childhood abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, dropping out of school, teen pregnancy, and committing crimes. Race has nothing to do with it. Whites also experience these problems in single parent homes; whites do not have the same rates
These things, along with poor nutrition and unstable home life, can contribute to poor executive function which helps control decision making.
All of this feeds into a higher rate of crime–regardless of race.
It doesn’t help matters that the police have been slowly becoming more militarized over the past few decades.
Some things to address:
*family structures–marriage best
*completing school and getting job training of some kind
*having children after marriage
*parenting classes
*not drinking or doing drugs
*better nutrition
*police having more and better training
*decreasing militarization of police
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the email. It “can only be upsetting” to 2 year old babies who are still in diapers.Yuo do not have to agree with it but it is a perfectly valid opinion. I think that political correctness is getting to our Professor if he thinks otherwise.
Do you know what equivocate means? Having an opinion does not preclude prejudice or ignorance and one is responsible for what they put forth- hence lost position.
Agreed on your free speech sentiments, Professor.
Moloney should’ve better contextualized what he was saying by speculating on whether the cops also had drugs in their systems (including alcohol) at the Floyd killing. Or maybe even taken it to a self qualifying position; i.e. that, statistically speaking anyway, there was a good chance that as a chaplain he’s raped young boys in his past and therefore his observations about Floyd should be taken under consideration in the same light.
The danger here as the world shifts on it’s free speech axis is that much prejudicial speech has masqueraded as being free speech but was just free for some and not others. White male Catholic consciousness having been granted more status in the free speech realm. The reordering of that paradigm is going to be painful for those previously regarded as having more of that social status in their freestyling pronouncements.
Interesting times. I’m enjoying watching the shifts. Long time coming, and let’s see what gets moved in a more solidified way.
Prejudicial speech, you say??? What do you call your remarks?
Honest observation.
Like it or not, prejudicial speech is subjective, and free speech encompasses ALL speech. You are a doof, and you insist on compounding that fact endlessly.
Nope.
I just am saying that free speech is free speech but there is nothing wrong with adding a qualifier to it.
“chaplain he’s raped young boys in his past ”
You observed this and did nothing? Then you are worse than what you claim.
“…prejudicial speech has masqueraded as being free speech…” This utterance demonstrates that you do not understand free speech. Free speech is not limited to the speech that is unprejudiced (in your or someone else’s opinion); free speech includes all speech with exceptions only for speech which constitutes deformation, fraud, or assault. I think that you and many others are under the misapprehension that protecting free speech is for the purpose of protecting “good” speech. That’s not the case. Most speech is worthless: trivial, untrue, mundane, etc. The real purpose of protecting speech is to avoid giving the govt (and the groups who influence govt) the power to censure people. It is about power. Because, once you have the power to censure others, you are one small step from tyranny.
So let’s say your observation is correct, shall we? Setting aside that you ignored the very first sentence of my “utterance.” What touched a button in you that what I said wasn’t about protecting all speech rather than pointing out some statistically relevant qualifiers involved with situations currently in free speech hot button domain?
I’d say that free speech is not above being qualified. Previously accepted norms don’t always stay that way. We’re in a time of refocusing, like it or not. And if you truly believed in free speech, what I said wouldn’t be at all objectionable. There would be no need to qualify what I said, no need to add “I think that you and many others are under the misapprehension that protecting free speech is for the purpose of protecting “good” speech.” to what I actually said (viewed through the lens of what you actually heard).
Like I said, interesting times.
“White male Catholic consciousness having been granted more status in the free speech realm”
I thought the purpose of all these “paradigm changes, protests, etc” was to equalize rights, not to replace one with another.
No matter how many statues they destroy, Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill etc will always among the greatest men of the 2nd millennium and in human history. Its not like by destroying they can assign those achievements to themselves, or change history. Having had one slave or 3000 by any of those men, is miniature in the big scheme of things and in comparison with the huge impact their actions had in world history and civilization.
Now if they want to be consistent about their “lets destroy everything that reminds them of White Supremacy” actions, then they should start by burning their cellphones and never again visiting a medical facility providing the latest scientific advances in medicine, medical treatment and technologies. All that stuff courtesy of evil white men.
Free speech is now unmasked as very much not free. Not even here.
But wise men always knew this
it’s time to get past our Enlightenment fancies, jettison the bromides, and hit back.
violence can be a perfectly valid and effective answer; this much i have learned from the recent violent protests.
others will learn too
I, too, have trouble finding fault with the content of the chaplain’s email. His wording and timing leaves a lot to be desired, however. I would like to make an additional comment about references to Mr. Floyd as a martyr…he is not. He is a symbol.
Born2sail,
“His wording and timing leaves a lot to be desired”
In what way?
Yes I couldnt get that one either. I had to re-read the email more than twice to even find what in the world may be even remotely offensive in it. At this point we arent even talking about denying people freedom of speech, its gone beyond that. Its denying people freedom of thought! I mean, there isnt ANYTHING! any more said that isnt twisted, spinned, taken out of context by a group of people who think themselves as the ONLY carriers of moral rectitude. Anything that deviates from that from THEIR perspective is now reason for firing and cancellation.
Look at Floyd’s criminal record of violence, his use of drugs, his passing phony money, his resisting arrest, and I doubt anyone here would want him in the neighborhood, town, county, state or country. Yet people are expected to say his death is a tragedy. It isn’t. Look for tragedy in the deaths of children shot in Chicago, Baltimore, or other riotous cities, deaths that are ignored because, in fact, black lives don’t matter; only political leverage and exploitation matter. There is no leverage or money when a black thug shoots a black child in Chicago so no marches, no riots, no CNN or NPR, none of it. It’s a death that doesn’t matter to these people.
We are suffering from an historic panderdemic and I fear it will be fatal to western civilization!
It seems to be an interesting conundrum. Perhaps a bright line on speech should be considered, but then there is no red line drawn on speech in the Constitution. I believe that Justice Holmes said to the effect that the only real limit is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. As a Catholic and lawyer I can find nothing wrong with Father Maloney’s email. Pointing out that Floyd had drugs in his system and was under arrest at the time he was killed is worth noting to develop context for Floyd’s death. Floyd has been out forth as a martyr. His death is a tragedy. Father Maloney and all Catholics offer prayers for the soul of Mr. Floyd. However, Fr. Maloney was not practicing hate speech. The Archdiocese and MIT responded out of political correctness masquerading as “social justice”.
Free sex for arch bishops and whatnots but no free speech. They have to speak the holy gospel. If ya buy into apCray ya gotta eat it.