The idea of a student’s having a “right” to wear the costume of a suicide bomber seems the wrong point to be making. To me it’s like saying someone has the “right” to make a film ridiculing people with handicaps. I guess there’s no law, but it’s not a matter of law; it’s a matter of the tenor of a society in which civilized people wish to live. I don’t understand turning everything into a “right.” It goes with the way our society is increasingly defined by laws and politics rather than by an understanding of the pre-political, sub-legal morals and mores that promote virtuous behavior and good citizenship. And I like Anthony’s formulation, “Society clearly needs the moral stewardship of its citizens.”

Also, Anthony makes the point that it is better that “public ostracism” should do the job rather than censorship, by which I think he means some kind of official censorship. Ok, but public ostracism is a form of censorship. The student has apologized and it is unlikely that he will publicly express himself in that fashion again, or find so many of his dopey fellows willing to participate in his charades.

Furthermore, Gutmann has issued a second statement in which she does not reiterate the student’s “right,” but calls the costume offensive and horrific and the photograph with her an embarrassment to the university. Some are evidently calling the statement another non-apology apology, but I think it represents progress. The offensive speech was met with more and better speech and the point has been won (except evidently in some “conservative” libertarian circles). Civilization 1; Savagery 0.