- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
At the heart of this debate is identity politics and the culture of victimhood
Jack, aren't you nearby the college of William and Mary? What is going on there?
I just got back from several days away. I'll have to look into it.
This is the most robust advocacy I have seen on behalf of campus free speech. It has never been more needed.
Campus insanity versus freedom of speech
Posted on October 21, 2017 | 220 comments
by Judith Curry
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Continue reading →
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Campus craziness
In case you haven’t been following this issue, there have been some disturbing events and trends in the ivory tower. For an overview, see:
Two particular articles motivated this post:
- In College and hiding from scary ideas
- Campuses are breaking apart into safe spaces
- Safe spaces on college campuses are creating intolerant students
- Campus free speech crisis deepens
- Campus chaos: Daily shout-downs for a week
Class struggle: how identity politics divided a campus. At Reed College, a freshman named Hunter Dillman who had been branded a racist after asking the organiser of a Latina student group an innocent question. He was ultimately hounded off campus.
Take Back the Ivory Tower. Alice Dreger, author of Galileo’s Middle Finger, describes her travails as a researcher and public speaker with a non-‘politically correct’ perspective on intersex and transgendered persons. She resigned her faculty position at Northwestern University over censorship issues. Unfortunately the article is behind paywall, you can read the intro here.
My concern is that without viewpoint diversity where everyone is heard, research and scholarship suffers. Further, students cocooning in safe spaces will be ill-prepared for dealing with the moral and political controversies and ambiguities that they will face throughout their lives. . . .
This is the most robust advocacy I have seen on behalf of campus free speech. It has never been more needed.
Campus insanity versus freedom of speech
Posted on October 21, 2017 | 220 comments
by Judith Curry
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Continue reading →
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Campus craziness
In case you haven’t been following this issue, there have been some disturbing events and trends in the ivory tower. For an overview, see:
Two particular articles motivated this post:
- In College and hiding from scary ideas
- Campuses are breaking apart into safe spaces
- Safe spaces on college campuses are creating intolerant students
- Campus free speech crisis deepens
- Campus chaos: Daily shout-downs for a week
Class struggle: how identity politics divided a campus. At Reed College, a freshman named Hunter Dillman who had been branded a racist after asking the organiser of a Latina student group an innocent question. He was ultimately hounded off campus.
Take Back the Ivory Tower. Alice Dreger, author of Galileo’s Middle Finger, describes her travails as a researcher and public speaker with a non-‘politically correct’ perspective on intersex and transgendered persons. She resigned her faculty position at Northwestern University over censorship issues. Unfortunately the article is behind paywall, you can read the intro here.
My concern is that without viewpoint diversity where everyone is heard, research and scholarship suffers. Further, students cocooning in safe spaces will be ill-prepared for dealing with the moral and political controversies and ambiguities that they will face throughout their lives. . . .
You mean that you're not aware of what is or has been going on in one of the most prominent colleges in the country? Really?
This whole thing is so overblown.
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.
I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?
In other words, there are - as SCOTUS found a long time ago - limits to the freedom of speech. We must defend freedom of speech when that speech does not advocate committing felonies...but if that speech does advocate the commission of felonies, especially if the speech calls for those felonies are committed on a grand scale, then yes, it really is constitutional to refuse to allow the speech on campus...or anywhere else, for that matter.
This?
Suspect arrested after bomb blast in Williamsburg, Va. - The Washington Post
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Washington Post › local › 2017/10/21[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176)]3 days ago · [/COLOR]A homemade bomb was detonated Thursday in the heart of Williamsburg, Va., near both the College of William & Mary and Colonial Williamsburg. Police arrested a suspect, who was charged with committing an act of terrorism, the city said Friday night. ... Deb Cheeseboro, the college's police chief said no one was injured.[/COLOR]
None of which touches on the points made in the OP narrative.
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.
I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?
In other words, there are - as SCOTUS found a long time ago - limits to the freedom of speech. We must defend freedom of speech when that speech does not advocate committing felonies...but if that speech does advocate the commission of felonies, especially if the speech calls for those felonies are committed on a grand scale, then yes, it really is constitutional to refuse to allow the speech on campus...or anywhere else, for that matter.
Meh. It's more of a RW meme that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny on the macro level.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2017/10/threat-free-speech-campus-right-wing-fantasy
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-milo-yiannopoulos-campus-freedom-expression
https://newrepublic.com/article/139474/myth-liberal-echo-chamber-campus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hing-academic-freedom/?utm_term=.f412b3070e37
It's a great way to keep the base fired up and sucker more rubes by citing handfuls of extreme examples that aren't representative of the whole, but hey, who cares? It beats an honest argument.
But it touches directly on the points in at least one of the links provided by your first reference.
Sure. That's why the linked articles include pieces from noted RW bastions like the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post.
Um, referring to the campus. Your OP?
And? My links also include the NYT. My statement stands.
This whole thing is so overblown.
You'll have to be more specific.
Okay. Asking really simply. What is going on at the College of William and Mary. Anything from your post?
Your constitutional analysis is incorrect. You can talk about and even advocate illegal activity all you want. The only permitted limit is speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, and that is narrowly construed to err on the side of free speech.
In any case, why is the "progressive" first instinct when it comes to these things so often to try to limit free speech? Or any other right, for that matter?
You'll have to be more specific.
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.
I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?
In other words, there are - as SCOTUS found a long time ago - limits to the freedom of speech. We must defend freedom of speech when that speech does not advocate committing felonies...but if that speech does advocate the commission of felonies, especially if the speech calls for those felonies are committed on a grand scale, then yes, it really is constitutional to refuse to allow the speech on campus...or anywhere else, for that matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?