Link to original article
As explained by the title, Morris Berger, a college football coach at Grand Valley State University in Michigan, was recently suspended over his comments about Hitler being a great leader. When asked in an interview which historical figures he'd like to have dinner with, Berger responded, "'This is probably not going to get a good review, but I'm going to say Adolf Hitler. It was obviously very sad and he had bad motives, but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none. How he rallied a group and a following, I want to know how he did that. Bad intentions of course, but you can't deny he wasn't a great leader.'" It is clear that Berger is aware of the malicious intent that Hitler had and the atrocious acts that he committed. I don't think Berger meant "great" as in how many atrocious acts Hitler committed, but instead how he was able to garner such a loyal following, as Berger mentioned in the interview. However, despite it being clear that Berger had no intent in offending anyone and that he was not some crazed neo-Nazi, he was still suspended from his job and is currently under an ongoing investigation. Although Berger may have had no negative intent, I believe that what Berger said wasn't appropriate in a school environment and that the college took appropriate action to ensure that students are in a safe learning environment. I also believe that this situation has bigger implications related to the First Amendment's right to free speech and what or what can't be said in schools.
Questions:
1. Do you agree with how the college handled this issue? Why or why not?
2. To what extent can schools determine what can or can't be said in schools?
I disagree with the suspension of Coach Berger, but I also understand that the school would also have been under scrutiny if similar action wasn't taken. I agree that Coach Berger made it clear that he was recognizing the leadership of Hitler and not his actions, as that was stated explicitly. Given that he is a coach at a college, I believe the players or anyone else listening has likely already formulated an opinion about the issue and can use their judgement to recognize his intent. I in no way support what Hitler did, but I do find it intriguing how effective he was at gathering support for his movement, and I think it is often a point left out when talking about him.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to add that in similar cases about the First Amendment in schools, like Tinker v. Des Moines or Engel v. Vitale advocate on the side of free speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines, it was ruled that the black armbands protesting the Vietnam War were not disruptive and I think the case is similar here. Coach Berger prefaced his statement as one that may be unpopular and even denounced Hitler's actions, so I believe his intent was not to offend or advocate for Nazism.
DeleteI think that the college made the right decision to suspend Berger due to the sensitivity of the topic. Although he may have not had any negative intent or meant to hurt anyone, several students studying at the university may have felt hurt by his comment. In order to ensure a safe learning environment like you said, the college had to take some action. As an instructor, professor, or coach being paid to educate and teach young minds, certain speech will undoubtedly become limited. Outside of the school environment it would have been acceptable for Berger to voice his opinions, but when he represents the school he should have considered the students and avoided such a heavy topic.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that while Berger's remarks are not a grave offense, perhaps not worthy of suspension, the college was justified in suspending him. As his remarks were not anti-Semitic or necessarily pro-Nazi, calling his remarks hate speech and using that as grounds for suspension is not fair; however, what I do believe is a fair basis is the idea of the "slippery slope," that allowing these remarks to pass without judgment opens the door for others more sinister to see how they can toe the line in the future to express vitriolic views in a "neutral" matter. Thus, given that the college presumably does not want to deal with these issues in the future, taking a firmer stance than necessary, even if it does suppress free speech, is fair. Whether these remarks were seen as offensive in of themselves is not the relevant factor as much as what future remarks could potentially imply.
ReplyDeleteSchools in general should have excessive liberty to curb student and faculty speech. Anything which detracts from the educational environment should be prohibited; this is not to say that schools should be sanitized of all controversy, or that students or faculty should not be able to express their outrage if necessary, but avoiding any and all remarks that "rock the boat" seems a strong policy. This applies to either end of the spectrum; a school is justified in barring Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, but also from barring AOC, and this applies to any such dipole on any issue. Even if this results in cries of censorship, the consequences of allowing open season are walk-outs, protests, and other items that disrupt the harmony of school.
I agree with your idea of the "slippery slope." By taking no action in regards to Berger's comments about Hitler, the college would potentially be allowing more hate speech which could then be grounds for putting restrictions on free speech in schools since hate speech could detract from a positive learning environment.
DeleteI personally have to respectfully disagree with nearly everything you've said, for the same reasons you've said them. You claim that not punishing Mr. Berger for his clearly NOT pro-Nazi statements would lead to a "slippery slope" where more "sinister" people could try toeing the line, but you neglect to consider the opposite: that punishing Mr. Berger would lead to a trend where neutral opinions are punished for "offending" extremists, something we are already seeing in some communities today, especially as our political environment gets more polarized. Secondly, you say that schools should have the liberty to prohibit anything that detracts from the learning environment, or else it will result in, and I quote, "walk-outs, protests, and other items that disrupt the harmony of school," but aren't all these things happening already despite the school making threats of marking students truant? In fact, if censorship were to increase, I'd wager that there would be even more walkouts and protests. I agree with you that schools should be allowed to obstruct speech that is distracting to the learning environment, but I'm sure that you'd also agree that there is a massive difference between speech that is distracting and speech that is simply constructively controversial. Saying "Hitler was evil but had a loyal following, and I want to know how he did that" is a statement that could be, and has been by many professionals, investigated further, as it sparks constructive controversy, and is not spoken just for the sake of disrupting the learning environment. I recall in Mr. Silton's class in 10th grade history we watched a film called "The Wave" where that exact statement was attempted to be answered. While the teacher in that film was suspended, it was because he literally started a cult. Simply talking about the subject, through film discussion or through Mr. Berger's statements in his interview, should not be grounds for suspension.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think his comments were extremely inappropriate and that his suspension was justifiable. Schools do have the right to prohibit speech that is distracting and considered obscene. Whether it was his intention or not, any sane person would consider Berger praising Hitler as a great leader to be offensive. I understand that Berger meant 'great' in reference to Hitler's loyal following rather than his ideologies and practices, but there were other leaders who obtained large followings that did not result in mass murder for racist reasons. He could've said Martin Luther King Jr, who was able to maintain a large following that advocated for non-violent protest and equal rights, or a religious leader like the Pope who many idolize. Instead, he chose to name someone who has caused so much fear and suffering in the world, and was aware of the backlash he would receive. If he really didn't have malicious intent and truly did not want to incite others, he would have chosen someone else. Schools should be able to protect the safety of their students, even if it means limiting hateful speech that should not be allowed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSure, Berger made a comment that most people would not be/are not happy with; but he has the right to say anything he wants (at least to a certain extent). The only thing Berger stated was the he essentially agrees and is a fan of Hitler's way of leadership, which he absolutely has the right to do under the "freedom of speech" amendment. Just because we may not agree with it, doesn't mean he is not allowed to voice his opinion. However, that again, doesn't mean that anything can or should be said ... Comments like this can make people feel uncomfortable or unsafe, and even feel like their safety is being threatened -- especially in a school filled with young, vulnerable college students. So yes, in the context of this specific situation, I think that the consequences Berger received are fair when compared to his action. Furthermore, in terms of how much authority schools have in determining what can or can't be said, I think that as long as there is no danger or even a possibility/threat of danger, individuals have the right to their speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the school's decision to suspend Berger. While he was clear in his intent and the response makes sense in context, if taken out of context or heard under different circumstances, many people may feel offended or unsafe which would reflect poorly on the school. In addition, he knew that his statement does not portray a positive image as he literally says that he knows his response will probably not "get a good review." As a football coach, Berger is a representative of the school, so he contributes to their image and is supposed to protect their image. The school can not ignore this statement, and they do have the right to prohibit his speech as it can be seen as disruptive. The school has to make sure that their students and faculty feel safe, especially with such a sensitive topic like Hitler.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the school take an appropriate approach to the situation and made the right decision of suspending Coach Berger. I think that praising the actions of Hitler, despite it having no negative or harmful intentions, is not appropriate in a school setting. Although he made it clear in his interview that he did not intend for his comment to have any bad intentions, I agree with others saying that his comment could definitely offend certain people if heard or taken out of context, seeing as the actions of Hitler is a serious and sensitive topic of discussion for some. In response to the second question, I believe that schools should ultimately not restrict students of stafficulty’s freedom of speech rights, but there should at least be some ground rules as to how and what controversial or sensitive topics should be discussed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see how Berger’s remarks could have offended students in the school. Hitler’s actions are undeniably unacceptable and the school had to do something to ensure that students continue to feel safe at the school. It is also simply understood that Hitler’s actions isn't a positive thing and his comments were inappropriate, especially in a school setting.. Berger represents this school and the school can not simply ignore a faculty member praising a person who has tortured and killed millions of people. Of course, Berger has the right to free speech but when it comes to sensitive topics like this where people can be triggered by the topic, it is important to think before you say something.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Berger's statement was certainly not the most appropriate in an academic setting, I would personally have given a stern warning instead of a direct suspension. Reason being, as others have mentioned, Berger's was clear in the fact that he only idolized his leadership skills but not his anti-Semitic views. However, the mere suggestion that one should look favorably upon an infamous figure such as Hitler, in any way shape or form, ought to be severely discouraged in an educational environment. In this particular scenario, I believe that the university was justified in its decision to suspend Berger due to his insensitive comments. That being said, schools must strive to determine whether or not there was real intent to spread hate in statements such as Berger's. From the information that was gathered, Berger claimed that there was no malice behind his inappropriate comment.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was very clear that Berger never meant to offend anyone with his comments regarding Hitler, I do believe the school took a right action in suspending him. When put into perspective, it is not wrong for someone to share their values and beliefs to the world, but in some places and under certain circumstances, individuals need to filter themselves to not hurt other people. Some people might get offended and might say that the words hurting them count as "hate speech", which is something the 1st Amendment does not protect. Also, I do believe schools should have a big role regarding what people are allowed to say on their campuses. One of the goals for any school is to keep their students safe and the way I see it, Grand Valley State University wanted to make sure their students were safe. I don't think Berger's comments should get him fired but as long as he gives a formal apology to the district/students/teachers, he should be able to go back to his job and try not to get into other problems with his comments.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that the college justified in suspending the coach. It is quite clear that this coach is not a nazi or pro-hitler person. There is a difference between supporting someone and speaking positively about something. The fact is that whether we like it or not, Hitler was a strong leader who abused that power to kill millions and conquer more than half of Europe. Obviously, the coach was referring to his ability to lead, not the person itself. There is a difference. I do believe people have the right to say what they want and do not agree with the decision to suspend. But I also believe they had the right to do so. I know that for many this is a very personal matter, however, I do not believe that it is right to take this as a personal insult. Referring to the slippery slope Ryan talked about. I believe that every hill has more than one slope. Much like allowing this speech opens the door to worse remarks, banning it may mean that people will ban any sprech that causes controversy.
ReplyDeleteI understand the school's actions in suspending Berger to ensure the safety of their students and community. However, one must also consider that the school may have either simply suspending him because they were uncomfortable with his remarks or because of the scepticism of teams' families. Although Berger may not have had negative intentions during the interview as he clearly stated that he only admired Hitler's leadership skills and not his anti-semantic views, his comments within a school environment can be seen as very extreme since Hitler is the most extreme example. However, Berger's comments are in fact protected by the First Amendment since there he is clearly only expressing his opinion which was not in any form meant to incite violance or semantic views. I believe when Berger comes back from suspension, he should formally apologize or clarify his intentions behind his remarks for the sake of the feeling of safety within the school community even though it should be clear that no one should have taken offense to what he said.
ReplyDeleteI think suspending the coach and starting an investigation were fine because what he said was completely inappropriate and insensitive for an interview, and the fact that he wants to know how to lead like Hitler and basically get people to do things they usually wouldn’t do without someone leading them like that is a little alarming for the football team. I don’t think the coach meant anything bad by this comment, but it would have just been better if he kept it to himself, or at least left it out of the interview. I don’t think this comment is related to the constitution or rights as much as it is to being culturally sensitive and knowing what’s okay and what’s offensive.
ReplyDeleteStudents have been opposing opinions on this issue which I find very interesting because these days it is difficult should know what is politically correct and appropriate to say. Technically by law one could have racist views and call themselves a racist. They would not be praised and society, they would probably be outcasted but it is their right to have racist views. Berger made a comment the does have merit because you cannot deny what Hitler was able to accomplish whether or not you agree with what he did, but I don't think Berger should have been suspended. If his views violated the agreement with the college then perhaps you could have released a statement to clarify his views reinforcing the idea that he does not believe in what Hitler did but I don't believe the suspension was necessary because he has the right to his own opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe school's reaction seems a little extreme to me, as his statements were rather non-confrontational and clearly stated that he did not support Hitler's actions, but rather his leadership ability. I don't support the decision to have an investigation initiated, but the suspension makes sense if students have actually been uncomfortable and are bothered by his statements. A safe learning environment should always be maintained, or at least schools should try to, and for the sake of students, it would probably be better to remove incredibly offensive material or people who have made students uncomfortable. When considered in terms of freedom of speech and a desire for open discussion in schools, though, it seems kind of unfair to suspend a staff member entirely when I've heard of students who have actually been neo-nazis with considerably more controversial views. I don't think there's really a clear line to be drawn in terms of what can or cannot be said in schools, as most speech would probably have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but schools should definitely be allowed to be stricter than normal standards of what is allowed under free speech.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the College's decision to suspend the coach. He made it very clear that he didn't agree with Hitler's intent. I think that if a historian were to say what that coach said, no one would really question it because Hitler's leadership was an anomaly and I think that his strange but powerful ability to garner so much support should be recognized so that we can study it further. If we don't acknowledge that, then we are missing an opportunity to not only truly understand his leadership, but also learn from it so that we can identify and stop it if someone like Hitler gains popularity again. I absolutely don't support Hitler's intentions. He exhibited psychopathic and sadistic traits, but he was also very successful in carrying out his goals, and I think it's important to recognize that so we can better understand history. There's nothing wrong with wanting to explore and understand people from the past, no matter how good or evil they are. It's more of a psychological fascination.
ReplyDeleteI think it was good the college took some action, to clearly state that they don’t support someone praising Hitler. However, I think this situation is a lot more complicated than the brief summary suggests. The coach had an explanation and said a lot of other things, but these student journalists decided, as most media does, to highlight this one that the coach said about Hitler. Regarding First Amendment rights, I think the coach was fine in what he said, it wasn’t attacking anyone, some people might still get offended but it was not intentional nor was it directed specifically at anyone. It would obviously become a problem if this guy gained a following who all praised Hitler and they began adopting his anti- semitism views. But again I think it is good that the college made an example of this and made it clear they don’t tolerate even potential neo-nazi ideals.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that Berger’s suspension from the school was justifiable as his comments were very inappropriate. As seen in supreme court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, schools do have some right to prohibit speech that is considered obscene or that is distracting. Even though Berger isn’t part of the school, he still represents the school since he is a coach, and he also could be a role model or influence to the students on the football team, and the school is going to do whatever they can to protect their image. I don’t believe that the coach’s comment has any sort of malicious intent; however, it would’ve been better to just keep the comment to himself.
ReplyDeleteI, like others believe that the college had some right in taking action but not as drastic of an action as they did. He did not ever say he would support Hitler's policies and ideals but rather that he was a capable leader who was able to rally such a large amount of people to his cause. The college should have warned him somewhat instead of just suspending him. There are many other great leaders, so I believe he could have been a bit more tactful about choosing a person he would like leadership tips from.
ReplyDelete