‘Don’t Say Gay’ and the Polarizing Effect of Speech Narcissism

Jennifer Holland: Welcome to Short Talks from the Hill, a research and economic development podcast from the University of Arkansas. I’m Jennifer Holland. My guest today is Danielle Weatherby, a professor in the School of Law who joined the university in 2013. Her scholarship focuses on the intersection between religious exercise and public accommodation laws, First Amendment jurisprudence and its impact on student speech, education law, and emerging legal protections for transgender individuals. Danielle’s work has appeared in some of the nation’s top law journals, and she has been featured in Fortune Magazine, The Seattle Times, Detroit News, and The Conversation. She has also provided legal commentary to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and many other national, state and local news publications. Welcome, Danielle!

Danielle Weatherby: Thank you so much for having me. It’s wonderful to be here.

JH: Now, I know one of your teaching interests is education law, and this is an area that’s been top of mind for many reasons lately, particularly regarding transgender individuals and laws that seek to limit LGBTQ discussions in schools. So, tell us, what does the research show us about the constitutionality of these laws?

DW: So, the law – I think – to which you’re referring, Jennifer, is a Florida law titled, “The Parental Rights in Education Act,” or as opponents to the law call it, “The Don’t Say Gay Law.” This is a stated purpose of restoring parental control over the education and upbringing of their children. But most opponents of the law argue that this asserted interest is mere pretext, since the law outright bans lessons about sexual orientation and gender identity in public kindergarten through third grades in Florida schools and bans the discussion of these topics in other grades unless they’re “age appropriate and developmentally appropriate.” Now, there are both policy laden and constitutional problems with the “Don’t Say Gay Law.” Policy-wise, opponents of the law argue that this ban on discussions surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity further stigmatizes marginalized students and will lead to more bullying, attacks, and ostracization of LGBTQ students. This is all obviously a real concern for already vulnerable students. Legally – and this is what my research focuses on – constitutional scholars argue that this law essentially places a muzzle on classroom teachers that may run afoul of the first amendment. Now, there’s very, this is a very complicated issue, because, in short, public school teachers have limited first amendment rights in public schools since districts make decisions about curriculum – what they teach in the classroom – and teachers must follow it. Teachers may be inclined to censor themselves for fear of retribution by parents who have the right to sue under this new law. It could also result in censorship of student speech. For example, if a child who is questioning his or her sexual orientation at a young age tries to discuss this with a teacher on public school grounds, and the teacher says, “Well, unfortunately we can’t discuss this by law,” there may be some unconstitutional government censorship there, in light of the Supreme Court’s student speech jurisprudence. Ultimately, LGBTQ advocates believe that these types of laws are pernicious and do more harm than good to the extent they perpetuate – as I said before – harmful stigmas that would have a detrimental effect on LGBTQ youth, a population which already battles high rates of suicide, depression, and self-inflicted harm.

JH: So then let’s talk a little more about the First Amendment and freedom of speech, specifically on college campuses – switching gears here a little bit. So, you were interviewed on Fox and Friends about speech narcissism and published a paper addressing this topic. Tell us what you mean by that term.

DW: The term “speech narcissism” is a term that characterizes what I perceive to still be a serious American problem and one of the reasons why we as a country are as polarized as we seem to be today and often find ourselves at an impasse on matters of public policy. What I mean in the research is that the narcissism reflects the sort of egotism or fixation with one’s own worldview and life experiences that makes us essentially unable to listen to opposition viewpoints. Instead of being open to different perspectives, speech narcissism is causing us to vilify individuals who express opposing viewpoints, leading essentially to a chilling effect in discourse and a breakdown in communication and in the exchange of ideas.

JH: Okay, Danielle, so you’ve talked a lot about the values of the First Amendment. What does that mean and where does that come from?

DW: A century ago, Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Louis Brandeis opined that public discourse, however unpleasant, is utterly essential to liberty. The justices gave meaning to the First Amendment by speaking of the free trade and ideas, the processes of education, and public discussion as a political duty. Later in the landmark defamation case, which many people have heard of, New York Times v. Sullivan — it’s a very famous case — Justice Brennan wrote that the nation’s interest in uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate on public issues necessarily requires protection of ideas that are vehement, caustic, and unpleasant. And that’s because we want people to feel free to speak without fear of government censorship. Even later, in upholding flag burning, of all things, as a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, the justices said if there’s a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Speech narcissism threatens these basic First Amendment values because it allows the loudest voices – often radicals on far ends of the political spectrum, as I’ve said – to silence other voices and essentially shut down the type of political discourse that the justices have said is essential to our democracy.

JH: That’s a great reminder. You’ve also said that the political correctness movement has undergone an extreme metamorphosis. Tell us about your research in this area and how you arrived at that conclusion.

DW: Yeah, so, political correctness…the movement was originally intended to invite diverse viewpoints to the learning environment…college campuses is how, you know, I think about it in terms of my research. And it was intended to encourage minority students to get involved in conversations where they previously were not welcome, thus establishing a true marketplace of essentially diverse ideas that, you know, serves the purposes of First Amendment marketplace of ideas. In the United States, the first widespread use of the term “political correctness” had a positive connotation. In the 1960s, progressive individuals who supported civil rights, black power, feminism, along with the conservative, anti-communist movement, believed that to be politically correct – meaning being true to each of their respective political views and movements – was ultimately beneficial to society. But, more recently, and I mean in the last several decades – the term “political correctness” was no longer a complimentary term, and it really became this partisan kind of pejorative descriptor which was owned by the progressives and despised by conservatives. And we see this playing out even today, and I just want to speak a little bit about this spectrum. At the more conservative end, we see individuals who kind of shun political correctness and applaud blunt, unfiltered commentary – even when it’s crass or offensive or even born out of hate. And then at the other end, we see hypersensitive, easily offended individuals – often liberals – demanding sterilized speech, resulting in an equally kind of chilling environment where people are so afraid to speak their minds out of fear that they might offend that they don’t speak at all. This is the ultimate impact or consequence of the swinging of the pendulum beyond where it was intended to be in terms of political correctness, and that’s what I speak about or write about in my research.

JH: Ok, very good. So, a lot of these topics can be quite stressful for individuals to discuss because, as you said, you know, viewpoints can be so polarized. Everyone gets passionate about their own point of view – sometimes to the point of not even listening to what the other side has to say. So how do you stay centered through all of this and take in these different perspectives without feeling overwhelmed by the polarization of these opinions?

DW: It’s not easy. Um, lots of deep breaths, lots of…um…kind of mindfulness. Certainly, as an educator, especially at the law school level, it’s important that I stay centered and don’t polarize my students in the classroom, because I want to give students who come from a myriad of backgrounds and perspectives the safety and security of expressing themselves without limiting who they are in the classroom. I think that’s important to their learning and development as young people and as lawyers. But it’s certainly not easy, and — again this is the consequence of this chilling effect that we’ve seen from the overreaching of political correctness, which was intended to be a positive thing. People are so afraid to speak out of fear that they’re either judged to be a villain that they don’t speak at all. I think there’s a silver lining, and I’m always… I’m an eternal optimist, so I have to speak to kind of the silver lining here. I know our country seems so divided because we have two very loud and passioned groups at opposite ends of a long spectrum who drown out everyone in between, and I know that that’s scary to the vast majority of people who fall somewhere in the middle. However, most issues of public policy – whether it’s immigration, gun reform, climate change, or even recently with abortion, most of these issues which seem so divisive because the loudest voices of far right conservatives or far left progressives are the ones who are on the outer banks of these issues. Most people agree more than they disagree, and that’s what kind of I think about. As, you know, bringing hope that we’ll be able to get back to a place where we can serve the marketplace of ideas that was at the foundation of the First Amendment, where we tolerate speech that may seem offensive, unpleasant, or even caustic in nature, so that everyone can speak their minds and share different viewpoints. I read recently as I was doing some research about the Supreme Court’s abortion decision that most Americans, according to a recent Pew Research poll, which tallied the views on abortion by political party and ideology, 60% of moderate Republicans and 72% of moderate Democrats believe that abortion should be legal in some cases. Whereas 27% of conservative Republicans and 90% of liberal Democrats believe so. When you do the math — and I won’t do it here on air — but when you do the math, this shows us that there’s only a 12% difference among moderate Conservative and Liberal political affiliates, whereas there’s a 63% difference among their far right and far left counterparts. Again, proving that the majority of us agree more than we disagree, especially on issues that seem to be so divisive and polarizing, and I hope that that’s the message from all of this and we can get back to a place where we can find that common ground.

JH: That’s great. Thank you so much.

DW: My pleasure.

JH: Thank you, Danielle, for being with us today, and we hope you come back again.

DW: Thank you for having me.

Matt McGowan: Music for Short Talks from the Hill was written and performed by local musician Ben Harris. For more information and additional podcasts, visit Arkansas Research. That’s arkansasresearch.uark.edu, the home of science and research news at the University of Arkansas.