There are two ideals here.
One is the ideal of a community characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for dignity of others, and openness to constructive change.
The other is the ideal of the community being a tolerant and supportive one, characterized by civility and consideration for others.
You can have one or you can have the other. But you cannot have both.
Every university says it dedicates itself to promoting new ideas. But the fact is that most new ideas of any merit and originality end up treading on someone's toes. Think of the professors who are offended by every new thought or idea, seeing it as a criticism of themselves? And what about the student committee members who see inflicting punishment as a celebration of their own power to affect people?
Ordering others to hold back from criticizing/ parodying/ poking fun at/ people who might be offended, is only a small step back from Lenin:
Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?
"Calculated embarrassment" is required in a free society.
Gotta disagree with this. There is no limit to the depths to which people will go, to make themselves offended. You cannot possibly kowtow to other people's standards as to what they might find offensive -- even if you wanted to.
The only standard I (any of us) can actually use, as to what is offensive, is what I myself find offensive -- and then pay heed to Dr Seuss: Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
In fact, Dr S's single sentence sounds like a better code of conduct for a University to adopt, than the Harvard nonsense.
