March 30, 1995
Ron Harris' penis has reared its ugly head again -- legalistically speaking. Harris is the SF State student who wrote "In Defense of Having a Penis," a rambling diatribe against feminism that appeared in Prism last spring. Although the piece was ridiculous, what happened to Harris and Prism raises serious questions about free speech on this campus.
Harris mailed copies of his story -- which included a photo of his penis -- to members of the women's studies department with a cover letter challenging them to a debate. The professors charged him with sexual harassment.
The article and letter represented harsh, even disrespectful criticism, but not sexual harassment.
Eventually, the issue died down. Now, one year later, Harris has decided to stir everything up again by suing SF State for $3.5 million, claiming he was hurt academically and professionally by the incident.
Lawsuits can be filed by anyone, regardless of their merit. Harris' suit does not have merit.
Harris' lawsuit is just another ill-advised attempt to draw attention to himself. But lost in this petty controversy are two important issues that touch on the free exchange of ideas on this campus.
The first issue is to remedy the alleged abuse that Harris' article represented to some faculty members. The professors proposed the formation of a committee to screen student publications for "offensive language" (i.e., ideas), prior to publication.
There's a dirty phrase jurists and journalists have for such plans: prior restraint. It's unconstitutional, and an embarrassment to any institution that values freedom of speech.
The second issue is a little more to the point: Don't students have the right to criticize professors on this campus?
Although nearly all of my professors have been able and dedicated, some are socially and politically paranoid, self-absorbed and secure in their tenure, intent on cramming their dogma down the throats of their students and calling it curriculum.
In the journalism department, one objective of writing pieces for Prism and Gater is to compile "clips" that demonstrate one's writing ability to potential employers. If Harris is showing "In Defense of Having a Penis" to prospective employers, he's making a mistake. I don't think the piece is very well written, and it could be highly offensive to some readers.
I don't think the article and the subsequent unprofessional conduct of sending an inflammatory letter to the women's studies department without the knowledge or consent of Harris' editor is the best way to launch a journalism career.
The harm being done to Harris is solely his own, but the greater issues face us all.
I was on the staff of Prism with Harris, and spent many hours discussing his article and letter with fellow staff members, our faculty advisor and Harris himself.
Other than obvious -- and misguided -- self-promotion, I still can't figure out what the hell Harris hoped to accomplish with his article and letter.
But there is no denying that students have the right to make such judgements whenever they deem it necessary in student publications and elsewhere on campus without fear of reprisal.
And that includes Ron Harris.