• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

Part V of VII
The Heckler's Veto in Schools
The past two decades have, at the circuit level, seen the HV doctrine applied to scholastic settings, although as Dariano demonstrates there is no general agreement as to the doctrine’s scope in relation to speech in and around academic settings. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit, in Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, endorsed the idea that the HV can apply in situations even where special school-specific considerations are extant. In Center, a pro-life group which demonstrated, carrying signs with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, in the vicinity of a middle school. Upon hearing some students planned to stone the display and that others were crying and distraught from seeing the images, concerned school officials contacted the police. The two demonstrators holding the signs in question were ordered to leave, and testified that their fears over being arrested had prevented them from protesting at other schools.

The Ninth Circuit’s message in Center for Bio-Ethical Reform was clear: a HV that is demanded by public school students is no less unconstitutional than one demanded by adults; however, as Dariano shows, the court was unwilling to extend that rationale into the classroom. The same cannot be said for other circuit courts, most notably the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, both of which have implicitly or explicitly embraced heckler’s veto principles in public school settings.​


  • [*=1]Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland -- "If certain bullies are likely to act violently when a student wears long hair, it is unquestionably easy for a principal to preclude the outburst by preventing the student from wearing long hair. To do so, however, is to sacrifice freedom upon the alter [sic] of order, and allow the scope of our liberty to be dictated by the inclinations of the unlawful mob. . . The fact that other students might take such a hairstyle as an incitement to violence is an indictment of those other students, not long hair."

    Essentially, the court decided schools cannot hide behind the expected or actual reactions of their students to suppress student speech.
    [*=1]Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School District -- Writing for the majority, Judge Posner noted that “high school students should not be raised in an intellectual bubble,” which would be the case if schools forbade discussion of political and social issues during the day. He asserted that “people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life."


Tinker and the Substantial Disruption Test
The Supreme Court’s modern school speech jurisprudence began to take shape in 1969’s Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The plaintiffs planned to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. In response, the principal established a policy banning all armbands, and the plaintiffs had to remove their bands to enter the school. The Court began noting the special constitutional characteristics of the school setting and the tension between “affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials” and protecting the First Amendment rights of students. Writing for the majority, Justice Fortas established what would become known as the substantial disruption standard:

But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression....Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk . . . . Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would ‘materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,’ [restrictions on student speech] cannot be sustained.

A desire to avoid the controversy or discord that might arise in response to the expression of unpopular views is not a justification for regulating student speech unless there is a material and substantial interference with the operations of the school.

(continued due to character limit)




 
Part VI of VII

The substantial disruption standard for regulating student speech has been further developed in the half century since Tinker was decided. Unfortunately, as a result of the individualized nature of the substantial disruption analysis, courts have generally struggled to define exactly what a substantial disruption is in marginal cases.[SUP]2[/SUP] Additionally, there remains some confusion as to whether the substantial disruption standard is concerned only with the speaker or whether third-party disruptions also must be considered. These unresolved issues have created an unenviable situation for school administrators trying to toe the line between respecting speech rights and preserving productive learning environments.

Looking at the history of the HV doctrine and its adjacent substantial disruption test, one sees that repeatedly, the matter of free speech is one governed by the relationship of citizens to the state and its agents. That makes free speech, the exercise thereof, a legal, not academic, right or value. It's facility is unquestioned, but maintaining one's rights to free speech is, as case after case show us, a matter for the state, not for private organizations, to protect and to eschew disabusing the polity and its members.​


Endnotes:
  1. Rather than asking me about my views on the HV, a far better group to whom one should direct that question, and more palpably germane to DP members, are DP's moderators/administrators. Fitting be it that they ask mods to reconcile DP's rules, auto-censoring and so on with the HV doctrine. A very strong case can be made that member's must here endure preemptive proscriptions on their free expression. I wouldn't pose that question -- for reasons obvious in my OP and in this post, but it seems an apropos query to be made by the member who broached the HV theme.
  2. For instance, it is now commonly accepted that schools need not wait for a substantial disruption to actually occur to regulate student speech, nor must they wait for an absolute certainty of a disruption; when a school has forecasted a disruption it is up to courts to decide whether this forecast is reasonable given the circumstances of the case. (Source)

(continued due to character limit)
 
Part VII of VII

....

You didn't read past the first paragaph, or you simply ignored what the article was really about, and how it relates to "academic freedom" and free speech on campuses This is exactly what it's about. (And by the way, First Amendment concerns ARE triggered when the administrations of state universities take action to stifle speech).

...

For some reason and despite the succinctness and clarity of their presentation
-- Xelor
There is NEVER anything "succinct" or "clear" about your posts, and that's by design, as I've pointed out. You still haven't answered the question. All you did here is dodge it yet again with your standard vague wall of words.

...

It's not as though I evaded the questions I answered. I didn't response to Hershaw's subsequent inquiry about the "HV" because the content (explicit and linked) had already provided my position -- with regard to both the positive aspects O'Neil and Kalven noted and the normative aspect Haiman suggested -- on that matter.
-- Xelor

Bull****. It's a simple question that you simply refuse to answer. By the way, you tip your hand here, because if one has connect dots between posts and ferret out an "answer" by "context" between posts, as you say should be done here, then you're not giving a "succinct" or "clear" answer.

Your callow comprehension and facile retorts bore me.

Red:
I cited the example I did (in the OP) and answered your questions as I did (in three single sentence bullet points, no less), and with the linked content I referenced, because they accurately and precisely represent my position on the matter and because they answer the question you asked:
If it has not value to you on an academic campus, and you would be against defending it on a campus, where would you ardently raise a defense of Free Speech?
-- Hershaw
Your attestation to the contrary doesn't alter the fact that I directly answered your question (the other one you asked in the same post was inane to begin with, which is why I ignored it). That you don't realize as much is on you, not me.

Blue:
I did, though it's clear to me you don't realize that I have answered the only one that had a modicum of merit and that you (or anyone) could not aptly infer from the OP's content and the answers I provided in post 6.

You asked about the HV in post 7.
  • That question didn't exist for me to answer in post 6.
  • Presumably you read the OP and my responses to your post 4 question; thus I'm not at all unwarranted in expecting that you might have (though I know now you didn't) grasped the key themes and concepts, thus obviating your need to ask me about my views on the HV. That was a stupid question to pose to me for it'd already been addressed by the time you asked it.

End of post series.
 
Freedom of speech is not an academic value. Accuracy of speech is an academic value; completeness of speech is an academic value; relevance of speech is an academic value. Each of these values is directly related to the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matters of fact and inference right. The operative commonplace is "following the evidence wherever it leads." One can’t do that if one's sources are suspect or nonexistent; one can’t do that if one only considers evidence favorable to one's preferred predicates; one can’t do that if one's evidence is far afield and hasn’t been persuasively connected to the instant matter of fact.

Nor can one follow the evidence wherever it leads if what guides one be a desire that inquiry reach a conclusion sympathetic to one's political views. If free speech is not an academic value because it is not the value guiding inquiry, free political speech becomes antithetical to inquiry: it skews inquiry in advance, one achieves one's end from the get-go.

Here, I think, is where your claim is going to fall far, far short; you seem to imply here that there are those who do not come to questions with preconceived ideas, that the same worldview which impacts one's politics will not of course impact their expectations elsewhere, and that those in charge of current large academic institutions are inherently protected from political groupthink. Nothing could be further for the truth. The reason we need free speech isn't because we are willing to risk bias. It's because we need bias to check the bias that is already here in us. "We must not allow research to be informed by political considerations" quickly becomes "We must not have research that could be politically advantageous to causes we disagree with. That research which we find politically advantageous to causes we agree with, we are naturally less inclined to question, and therefore must be more academically pure, due to our reduced disagreement."
 
For what it's worth, I fully support free speech of ideas. And the best approach to tackling misinformation and factually inaccurate speech is to challenge it. I've seen both sides of the political isle want to stop dissenting views. This has to end. Open up to hear the other side, and denounce it when it is factually inaccurate. But denounce the inaccuracy and not the person.

That said, I hear a lot of garbage from students today and few want to be challenged and often consider a challenge sign of bias from the instructor. and while I support teachers being challenged as well, it must be with reason and evidence and not mere belief.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Freedom of speech is not an academic value. Accuracy of speech is an academic value; completeness of speech is an academic value; relevance of speech is an academic value. Each of these values is directly related to the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matters of fact and inference right. The operative commonplace is "following the evidence wherever it leads." One can’t do that if one's sources are suspect or nonexistent; one can’t do that if one only considers evidence favorable to one's preferred predicates; one can’t do that if one's evidence is far afield and hasn’t been persuasively connected to the instant matter of fact.

Nor can one follow the evidence wherever it leads if what guides one be a desire that inquiry reach a conclusion sympathetic to one's political views. If free speech is not an academic value because it is not the value guiding inquiry, free political speech becomes antithetical to inquiry: it skews inquiry in advance, one achieves one's end from the get-go.
-- Xelor

Here, I think, is where your claim is going to fall far, far short; you seem to imply here that there are those who do not come to questions with preconceived ideas, that the same worldview which impacts one's politics will not of course impact their expectations elsewhere, and that those in charge of current large academic institutions are inherently protected from political groupthink. Nothing could be further for the truth. The reason we need free speech isn't because we are willing to risk bias. It's because we need bias to check the bias that is already here in us. "We must not allow research to be informed by political considerations" quickly becomes "We must not have research that could be politically advantageous to causes we disagree with. That research which we find politically advantageous to causes we agree with, we are naturally less inclined to question, and therefore must be more academically pure, due to our reduced disagreement."
Can you please explain your cognition that led you to arrive at your stated conclusion about what you think I've, by the indicated passage, implied?
 
For what it's worth, I fully support free speech of ideas. And the best approach to tackling misinformation and factually inaccurate speech is to challenge it. I've seen both sides of the political isle want to stop dissenting views. This has to end. Open up to hear the other side, and denounce it when it is factually inaccurate. But denounce the inaccuracy and not the person.

That said, I hear a lot of garbage from students today and few want to be challenged and often consider a challenge sign of bias from the instructor. and while I support teachers being challenged as well, it must be with reason and evidence and not mere belief.

I hope that makes sense.
Pink + Red:
Yes, that makes sense.

Pink:
It is equally important to decry claims that are contextually inapt.

Blue:
Denouncing the person is sometimes valid. Whether the recrimination is or isn't valid depends on the context of the matter being discussed.

For example:
Invalid:
Let's say a movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. This denunciation of Cruise and the film exemplifies the type of ad hominem attack called “poisoning the well,” whereby the character assault appears before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subject -- in this case, Cruise’s film and its own merits without regard to Cruise's religious affiliation. If successful, the reminder that Cruise is affiliated with Scientology will bias the listener against the movie. This partiality is unjustified, because Cruise’s religious affiliation is not germane to his acting abilities or the entertainment value of his movie.

Valid:
Consider former NY governor Eliot Spitzer who, a wiretap revealed, arranged to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anti-corruption platform, his willingness to be party to prostitution could rationally compromise his position regarding the enforcement of prostitution proscriptions, thus preventing Spitzer from, at least with regard to that aspect of law enforcement and legislation, governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character is, to a degree, valid.

Could his involvement in prostitution be used to validly denigrate his ability to govern with regard to managing a natural disaster's effects? No. The context of the offense and the aspect of governance (disaster management) are unrelated. For Spitzer's prostitution participation to be germane/valid for that line of disparagement, one'd have to show somehow that Spitzer would give unduly favorable disaster relief treatment to prostitution industry sellers/buyers and deny or delay the same to non-prostitution industry actors.


Tan:
Yes. A key theme of the OP is that the "garbage," the unsound/uncogent rhetoric, must, because it is "garbage," remain unpresented. The burden for thus keeping mum rests on the would-be speaker, and part of the way s/he honors that onus is by recognizing when one's conception of a matter is subpar and, in turn, not belching out one's absurd objection (or approbation) merely because notions of free speech allow one to do so. Adhering to such principled discourse is to exhibit an academic value, and it is not a squelching of free speech.


Green:
Well, there is a difference between didactic challenges and repartee in the classroom and ill-/uninformed effluvium spewn forth in the public sphere.

The lecture that I used as my example didn't occur during the conduct of a class session. It was an event in which a speaker had been invited to express his ideas in the public sphere.

Just as context determines the in-/validity of a personal attack, so too does it determine the legitimacy and aptness of one's openly sharing one's thoughts. For everything there is a time and a place, and it's a speaker's duty, it's an academic value, to suss when is and is not that time and place to express one's thoughts.

In the Middlebury example I presented in my OP, it was the students, not Murray, who deserved to be silenced....silenced not to curtail their free speech rights, but because they hadn't anything of merit to say. They effected the heckler's veto to squelch Murray, rather than, as the values of academia require, one or some of them presenting rigorous, sound/cogent objections to the substance of his remarks. Quite simply, lacking a strong counter-argument, the students should have remained quiet.
 
Valid:
[/INDENT]
Consider former NY governor Eliot Spitzer who, a wiretap revealed, arranged to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anti-corruption platform, his willingness to be party to prostitution could rationally compromise his position regarding the enforcement of prostitution proscriptions, thus preventing Spitzer from, at least with regard to that aspect of law enforcement and legislation, governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character is, to a degree, valid.

Could his involvement in prostitution be used to validly denigrate his ability to govern with regard to managing a natural disaster's effects? No. The context of the offense and the aspect of governance (disaster management) are unrelated. For Spitzer's prostitution participation to be germane/valid for that line of disparagement, one'd have to show somehow that Spitzer would give unduly favorable disaster relief treatment to prostitution industry sellers/buyers and deny or delay the same to non-prostitution industry actors.


Tan:
Yes. A key theme of the OP is that the "garbage," the unsound/uncogent rhetoric, must, because it is "garbage," remain unpresented. The burden for thus keeping mum rests on the would-be speaker, and part of the way s/he honors that onus is by recognizing when one's conception of a matter is subpar and, in turn, not belching out one's absurd objection (or approbation) merely because notions of free speech allow one to do so. Adhering to such principled discourse is to exhibit an academic value, and it is not a squelching of free speech.


Green:
Well, there is a difference between didactic challenges and repartee in the classroom and ill-/uninformed effluvium spewn forth in the public sphere.

The lecture that I used as my example didn't occur during the conduct of a class session. It was an event in which a speaker had been invited to express his ideas in the public sphere.

Just as context determines the in-/validity of a personal attack, so too does it determine the legitimacy and aptness of one's openly sharing one's thoughts. For everything there is a time and a place, and it's a speaker's duty, it's an academic value, to suss when is and is not that time and place to express one's thoughts.

In the Middlebury example I presented in my OP, it was the students, not Murray, who deserved to be silenced....silenced not to curtail their free speech rights, but because they hadn't anything of merit to say. They effected the heckler's veto to squelch Murray, rather than, as the values of academia require, one or some of them presenting rigorous, sound/cogent objections to the substance of his remarks. Quite simply, lacking a strong counter-argument, the students should have remained quiet.

I participate more often in classroom.

But lets talk about your example concerning attacking the person. Character concerns are important when discussing the importance of character or the role character will play on an issue. I might well argue that Trump's lack of character is a concern and that those who espoused to the idea that character was important but ignore that to support him have in fact demonstrated that those values didn't really matter to them. And it is fair to call this out. It would however not be proper to merely call them names and attack them as people. I say this largely due to purpose of such discussions. who you insult rarely listens to you. This works with an audience as well. If your purpose is to counter a hateful and inaccurate speaker, shouting them down largely gives them more followers and not less. A well reason and rational argument is largely more effective, even today.

Back to the classroom. The younger the student and the earlier in the process the less capable students are to formulate well reasoned argument Their young and that's their fault (old song reference), but the point is they have to learn. The politics of the day, what's going on at home, on social media and from our leaders has them ready to pounce on and at different views. This is harmful. In college, we have to teach them to engage, to reason, to not be sheltered, but to develop tools to resist "garbage." You can't do that by creating a safe space where they don't confront irrationality with reason.

Yes, I read what you wrote and in some spots I echo it, but I think it is the respectful discourse that I want to emphasize. Students should not shout down a speaker, but engage the speaker in pointed discourse. Protests are acceptable, but not during the discourse. As you said, a time and place.

And a speaker who won't engage a student with a different view marks him or herself as well.
 
I participate more often in classroom.

But lets talk about your example concerning attacking the person. Character concerns are important when discussing the importance of character or the role character will play on an issue. I might well argue that Trump's lack of character is a concern and that those who espoused to the idea that character was important but ignore that to support him have in fact demonstrated that those values didn't really matter to them. And it is fair to call this out. It would however not be proper to merely call them names and attack them as people. I say this largely due to purpose of such discussions. who you insult rarely listens to you. This works with an audience as well. If your purpose is to counter a hateful and inaccurate speaker, shouting them down largely gives them more followers and not less. A well reason and rational argument is largely more effective, even today.

Back to the classroom. The younger the student and the earlier in the process the less capable students are to formulate well reasoned argument Their young and that's their fault (old song reference), but the point is they have to learn. The politics of the day, what's going on at home, on social media and from our leaders has them ready to pounce on and at different views. This is harmful. In college, we have to teach them to engage, to reason, to not be sheltered, but to develop tools to resist "garbage." You can't do that by creating a safe space where they don't confront irrationality with reason.

Yes, I read what you wrote and in some spots I echo it, but I think it is the respectful discourse that I want to emphasize. Students should not shout down a speaker, but engage the speaker in pointed discourse. Protests are acceptable, but not during the discourse. As you said, a time and place.

And a speaker who won't engage a student with a different view marks him or herself as well.

Red:
Well, yes. There does have to be a valid case presented along with the aspersion and/or character impeachment.


Blue:
True. I think concessions need to be made -- on the students' part and on that of their betters -- for minors. That said, and as I noted, discourse in the didactic context of the classroom setting is quite different from exchanges in the public area.

Of course, the kids at Middlebury weren't minors. Indeed, they're supposed to be among the country's best and brightest. Accordingly, they are, IMO, rightly held to a higher standard, both in and out of the classroom.


Pink:
I think you and I are on the same page.


Tan:
Having been a lecturer and a panelist/speaker at a few symposia, albeit not one who got heckler vetoed, I welcome thoughtful retorts, remarks and refutations/rebuttals. On the other hand, the "garbage" remarks are just that, and, frankly, little but distractions. Of course, such situations are public and one can't summarily and rudely dismiss the participants who manage to air their "peanut gallery" thoughts.

Having briefly been a college instructor (I was, for several years, a graduate teaching assistant), during class/office hours, of course, I welcomed even the "peanut gallery" questions and comments because their airings made for organically presented teaching opportunities. But therein is part of the difference between a classroom and a lecture/symposium/seminar. (Did I mislead you with the term "lecture?" I didn't mean lecture in the sense of an instructor's classroom lecture, which is a fine time for students to raise their topically germane questions, be they soliciting clarification of or expansion on the ideas being taught.)
 
Red:
Well, yes. There does have to be a valid case presented along with the aspersion and/or character impeachment.


Blue:
True. I think concessions need to be made -- on the students' part and on that of their betters -- for minors. That said, and as I noted, discourse in the didactic context of the classroom setting is quite different from exchanges in the public area.

Of course, the kids at Middlebury weren't minors. Indeed, they're supposed to be among the country's best and brightest. Accordingly, they are, IMO, rightly held to a higher standard, both in and out of the classroom.


Pink:
I think you and I are on the same page.


Tan:
Having been a lecturer and a panelist/speaker at a few symposia, albeit not one who got heckler vetoed, I welcome thoughtful retorts, remarks and refutations/rebuttals. On the other hand, the "garbage" remarks are just that, and, frankly, little but distractions. Of course, such situations are public and one can't summarily and rudely dismiss the participants who manage to air their "peanut gallery" thoughts.

Having briefly been a college instructor (I was, for several years, a graduate teaching assistant), during class/office hours, of course, I welcomed even the "peanut gallery" questions and comments because their airings made for organically presented teaching opportunities. But therein is part of the difference between a classroom and a lecture/symposium/seminar. (Did I mislead you with the term "lecture?" I didn't mean lecture in the sense of an instructor's classroom lecture, which is a fine time for students to raise their topically germane questions, be they soliciting clarification of or expansion on the ideas being taught.)

Likely, lecture is someone different for me I suppose, though my lectures are structured as conversations. I try to challenge thinking. But it's harder to pull off than it used to be.
 
Likely, lecture is someone different for me I suppose, though my lectures are structured as conversations. I try to challenge thinking. But it's harder to pull off than it used to be.
My classroom lectures (economics) were a mix. Most of the time I simply taught the content in a straightforward way, standing at the front of the classroom and explaining the concepts and analytical techniques. Once every couple weeks, usually two or three classroom sessions ahead of an exam (I figured that was a good time and far enough in advance of an exam, for them to discover whether they actually grasped the concepts, which ones pertained to which situations, which among several deserved more and/or less weight in a given situation, etc.), I led interactive/socratic discussions focused on applying the concepts I'd previously taught. But that was for a principles-level course.

For the intermediate-level course I taught, the classroom sessions were more heavily interactive; however, at that level, the expectation on the student is greater...They arrive in the class having already take the prerequisites, so my instruction assumes they've mastered that content. Occasionally a student would have a question about performing a specific technical operation, and, of course, I'd address it. Mostly, however, my classroom lectures were geared toward getting the students to think about the technical elements and apply them in analyzing "real world" situations. It was only on the exams (or quizzes) and in papers that they were required to demonstrate their facility with actually performing the mathematical operations attendant to the concepts.

There again, however, it was college not school. The students are adults and they were there because they'd willfully decided to be in college and they chosen the class they were in. Unlike in K-12, it's a collegian's "job" to be outstanding at learning the material more so than it is the instructor's job to be outstanding at teaching it.


Off-topic:
Do you use the Harkness method?​
 
I have stated in multiple posts, including my introduction of myself, that I am not an academic. I am a retired management consulting principal.

I withdraw my post #29, based on your post #37.

I knew you were associated with the academic world. I've worked with many in that area and your posts have all too familiar similarities. How dishonest to deny it based on a literal definition of academia.
 
My post 35:
I was, for several years, a graduate teaching assistant

My Post 37:
My classroom lectures (economics) were a mix. Most of the time I simply taught the content in a straightforward way, standing at the front of the classroom and explaining the concepts and analytical techniques. Once every couple weeks, usually two or three classroom sessions ahead of an exam (I figured that was a good time and far enough in advance of an exam, for them to discover whether they actually grasped the concepts, which ones pertained to which situations, which among several deserved more and/or less weight in a given situation, etc.), I led interactive/socratic discussions focused on applying the concepts I'd previously taught. But that was for a principles-level course.

For the intermediate-level course I taught, the classroom sessions were more heavily interactive; however, at that level, the expectation on the student is greater...They arrive in the class having already take the prerequisites, so my instruction assumes they've mastered that content. Occasionally a student would have a question about performing a specific technical operation, and, of course, I'd address it. Mostly, however, my classroom lectures were geared toward getting the students to think about the technical elements and apply them in analyzing "real world" situations. It was only on the exams (or quizzes) and in papers that they were required to demonstrate their facility with actually performing the mathematical operations attendant to the concepts.

There again, however, it was college not school. The students are adults and they were there because they'd willfully decided to be in college and they chosen the class they were in. Unlike in K-12, it's a collegian's "job" to be outstanding at learning the material more so than it is the instructor's job to be outstanding at teaching it.


Off-topic:
Do you use the Harkness method?​

I withdraw my post #29, based on your post #37.

I knew you were associated with the academic world. I've worked with many in that area and your posts have all too familiar similarities. How dishonest to deny it based on a literal definition of academia.
Red:
  • You really think that my having, during the time of my obtaining my graduate degrees, taught classes makes me be part of academia? Really?
  • Do you have any idea of what a graduate teaching assistantship is? Essentially, it's working one's way through school.
I can assure you that academics don't think of me as one of their number. They don't because my career was in business, not in academia. One's happening to have been a TA doesn't make one an academic. It merely makes one someone who worked as part of a college/university's faculty and by doing so, funded obtaining one's degree. That I was a TA I have college-level teaching experience; it doesn't mean I was or am an academician, professor, dean, provost, or anything other than the lowest level instructor (namely a student instructor, aka teaching assistant) there is in a college/university.
 
Part I of II

On multiple occasions, I've seen people here gripe about collegians being unable, on campus, to say whatever suits them. Just as parents draw a line about what of their guidance is open for debate, college students face constraints on what they can and cannot say in an academic context. To wit, the experience and insights I impart to my kids aren't by them things to question. When they have the life experience, intellectual knowledge and acuity to make their own marks in the world and not depend on the ones I've made for their sufficiency, I will have achieved my goal of raising them, and at that point all of my input will for them be reduced to suggestion status, whereupon they become free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, free to express themselves as they desire, and free to raise their own kids as I raised them or differently.

The same concept applies in higher education settings. When students reach the point that they have original ideas that withstand rigorous scrutiny, the discipuli will have then earned the right to speak freely on topics that capture their interest and that fall within the scope of their expertise. Until then, however, they need to sit down, take notes and, where/when fitting, ask intelligent questions.


Freedom of speech is not an academic value. Accuracy of speech is an academic value; completeness of speech is an academic value; relevance of speech is an academic value. Each of these values is directly related to the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matters of fact and inference right. The operative commonplace is "following the evidence wherever it leads." One can’t do that if one's sources are suspect or nonexistent; one can’t do that if one only considers evidence favorable to one's preferred predicates; one can’t do that if one's evidence is far afield and hasn’t been persuasively connected to the instant matter of fact.

Nor can one follow the evidence wherever it leads if what guides one be a desire that inquiry reach a conclusion sympathetic to one's political views. If free speech is not an academic value because it is not the value guiding inquiry, free political speech becomes antithetical to inquiry: it skews inquiry in advance, one achieves one's end from the get-go.

Speech is political if, when answering questions, one believes it is one's task to answer normatively rather than dialectically. Any number of topics taken up in a classroom will contain moral and political issues, issues like discrimination, inequality, institutional racism. Those issues should be studied, analyzed, and historicized, but they shouldn’t, in the classroom, be debated with a view to forming and prosecuting a remedial agenda.

The academic interrogation of an issue leads to comprehension of its complexity; it does not (nor should it) lead to joining a party or marching down Main Street. That is what I mean by saying that the issue shouldn’t be taken normatively; taking it that way would require following its paths and byways to the point where one embarks upon a course of action; taking it academically requires that one stop short of action and remain in the realm of deliberation so long as the academic context is in session; action, if it comes, comes later or after class.

(continued due to character limit)

The biggest problems facing modern college kids are created and developed by teachers trying to instill in them that truth is relative and bends to majority opinion.
 
The biggest problems facing modern college kids are created and developed by teachers trying to instill in them that truth is relative and bends to majority opinion.
The questions my children and parents alike like least: How? How so? Why? Why so?
-- Xelor​


Red:
Perhaps....Having long since obtained my degrees and having but four kids of my own, I haven't enough exposure to what's said in the classroom to know whether the phenomenon you note is preponderant or exceptional.

To be sure, there does appear to be a cultural phenomenon whereof the truth's existentiality can be democratically determined. The pedagogical etiology of that happenstance isn't "settled science" in my mind. Have you any empirical data that supports your assertion's causal underpinning? I'd be quite interested in reading research on the matter.

FWIW, you may find the following interesting to read:



Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
-- Carl Sagan​
 
The questions my children and parents alike like least: How? How so? Why? Why so?
-- Xelor​


Red:
Perhaps....Having long since obtained my degrees and having but four kids of my own, I haven't enough exposure to what's said in the classroom to know whether the phenomenon you note is preponderant or exceptional.

To be sure, there does appear to be a cultural phenomenon whereof the truth's existentiality can be democratically determined. The pedagogical etiology of that happenstance isn't "settled science" in my mind. Have you any empirical data that supports your assertion's causal underpinning? I'd be quite interested in reading research on the matter.

FWIW, you may find the following interesting to read:



Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
-- Carl Sagan​

Academia in America seems to be suffering from an unhealthy view of the absolute nature of truth. I said truth is to many modern members of the intelligentsia more a matter of relativity rather than of absolutes. You asked me to provide support. This is from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal:

Why College Graduates Still Can't Think, by Rob Jenkins, Mar 23, 2017.

...The result is that, although faculty in the humanities and social sciences claim to be teaching critical thinking, often they're not. Instead, they're teaching students to"deconstruct" - to privilege their own subjective emotions or experiences over empirical evidence in the false belief that objective truth is relative, or at least unknowable.

https:The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal —
 
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
 
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
 
Academia in America seems to be suffering from an unhealthy view of the absolute nature of truth. I said truth is to many modern members of the intelligentsia more a matter of relativity rather than of absolutes. You asked me to provide support. This is from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal:

Why College Graduates Still Can't Think, by Rob Jenkins, Mar 23, 2017.

...The result is that, although faculty in the humanities and social sciences claim to be teaching critical thinking, often they're not. Instead, they're teaching students to"deconstruct" - to privilege their own subjective emotions or experiences over empirical evidence in the false belief that objective truth is relative, or at least unknowable.

https:The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal —

Thank you.

BTW, there link you provided too me to the center's page not Jenkins' essay. (https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/03/college-graduates-still-cant-think/)

Jenkins' themes dovetail quite nicely with the point of the OP. Jenkins writes:
Traditionally, the “critical” part of the term “critical thinking” has referred not to the act of criticizing, or finding fault, but rather to the ability to be objective. “Critical,” in this context, means “open-minded,” seeking out, evaluating and weighing all the available evidence. It means being “analytical,” breaking an issue down into its component parts and examining each in relation to the whole.

Above all, it means “dispassionate,” recognizing when and how emotions influence judgment and having the mental discipline to distinguish between subjective feelings and objective reason—then prioritizing the latter over the former.

Jenkins shares also one of my own observations, one I see manifested on DP and occasionally in the "real world":
I assumed that virtually all the readers would agree with this definition of critical thinking—the definition I was taught as a student in the 1980s and which I continue to use with my own students.

To my surprise, that turned out not to be the case. Several readers took me to task for being “cold” and “emotionless,” suggesting that my understanding of critical thinking, which I had always taken to be almost universal, was mistaken.​

One need only peruse the discussions on here in the economics subforum to see examples of both of Jenkins' ideas noted above. Happening into most gun, climate change and abortion discussions reveal the same preponderance of procrustean formulations that routinely result from one's dearth of critical thinking adroitness. Of course, lighter issues aren't immune from the phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
My classroom lectures (economics) were a mix. Most of the time I simply taught the content in a straightforward way, standing at the front of the classroom and explaining the concepts and analytical techniques. Once every couple weeks, usually two or three classroom sessions ahead of an exam (I figured that was a good time and far enough in advance of an exam, for them to discover whether they actually grasped the concepts, which ones pertained to which situations, which among several deserved more and/or less weight in a given situation, etc.), I led interactive/socratic discussions focused on applying the concepts I'd previously taught. But that was for a principles-level course.

For the intermediate-level course I taught, the classroom sessions were more heavily interactive; however, at that level, the expectation on the student is greater...They arrive in the class having already take the prerequisites, so my instruction assumes they've mastered that content. Occasionally a student would have a question about performing a specific technical operation, and, of course, I'd address it. Mostly, however, my classroom lectures were geared toward getting the students to think about the technical elements and apply them in analyzing "real world" situations. It was only on the exams (or quizzes) and in papers that they were required to demonstrate their facility with actually performing the mathematical operations attendant to the concepts.

There again, however, it was college not school. The students are adults and they were there because they'd willfully decided to be in college and they chosen the class they were in. Unlike in K-12, it's a collegian's "job" to be outstanding at learning the material more so than it is the instructor's job to be outstanding at teaching it.


Off-topic:
Do you use the Harkness method?​

I try to get them to think and organize ideas and create meaning (Writing/ Literature/ Argument). I was unaware of the Harkness method but what I do is similar. We have rules. And it is seldom about debate, but more problem solving and consensus. When we debate, it has to be about the reasoning and the evidence presented. There are some style and form along with audience and purpose elements. We do, however, avoid quarrels and overly emotional appeals.
 
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I am wondering if it is possible to truly have a free speech forum anywhere. If a certain party believes he has the right to rant or belittle, than setting up the forum not in that way takes away that right to his version of free speech.

In the end, the forum moderators set up the rules. Those in attendance should follow them. If the forum is productive, future forums should be well attended.
 
Part I of II

When they have the life experience, intellectual knowledge and acuity to make their own marks in the world and not depend on the ones I've made for their sufficiency, I will have achieved my goal of raising them, and at that point all of my input will for them be reduced to suggestion status, whereupon they become free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, free to express themselves as they desire, and free to raise their own kids as I raised them or differently.

The same concept applies in higher education settings. When students reach the point that they have original ideas that withstand rigorous scrutiny, the discipuli will have then earned the right to speak freely on topics that capture their interest and that fall within the scope of their expertise. Until then, however, they need to sit down, take notes and, where/when fitting, ask intelligent questions.


Freedom of speech is not an academic value. Accuracy of speech is an academic value; completeness of speech is an academic value; relevance of speech is an academic value. Each of these values is directly related to the goal of academic inquiry: getting a matters of fact and inference right. The operative commonplace is "following the evidence wherever it leads." One can’t do that if one's sources are suspect or nonexistent; one can’t do that if one only considers evidence favorable to one's preferred predicates; one can’t do that if one's evidence is far afield and hasn’t been persuasively connected to the instant matter of fact.

Nor can one follow the evidence wherever it leads if what guides one be a desire that inquiry reach a conclusion sympathetic to one's political views. If free speech is not an academic value because it is not the value guiding inquiry, free political speech becomes antithetical to inquiry: it skews inquiry in advance, one achieves one's end from the get-go.



Could this 'freedom of speech' be applicable to any topic regardless of any 'norm' or anti-norm? In other words, as a personal thinker, does my free speech, with facts and understandings and evidences, apply to many others or just to myself? Or am I trying to find some supporters for/to my own personal belief which I would have needed to gather the proper evidences to go 'a bit' contrary to what would have already been in place? Or could i actually 'build' upon those things which have already been placed, such as personal liberties. I do have a question though. When a person speaks about personal liberties as if they are without them or having their personal liberties infringed upon, what liberties might they be seeking to be made even more 'free' in an already 'free' place?

i would think that if any more 'freedoms' were desired, those freedoms would be of possessions and not of permissions. Could these 'liberties' be of the 'ruling' types. As in having a freedom of speech speaking of the 'good' which oppression and forced labor could produce for the society if all of the 'welfare' recipients would be forced into some kind of 'manual' work learning experience?


If so, why not seek to make things which would provide for the same 'growth' but without the 'forced labor' part or 'task mastered' part of the picture? Or is the problem actually getting those 'recipients' there?


So what could this 'lack of freedoms' to personal liberties be?


Getting the poor out of the land? Would you have any suggestions as to how they would be able to themselves if they wanted to? Because remember that a dollar received is usually a dollar earned; not printed. So if i was to go out on a limb and was a proponent to false monies but personal freedoms, i might think that a Country to run off fake monies to take the place of real monies could have a new set of rules by which the Country runs on. But where would the ones who prefer dealing with the monies that can purchase them their livelihood in other countries go if such a thing was to occur and if their own monies was dwindling to the point of being 'poor'?



In December 2017, the median weekly salary for Americans was $857, which equals $3,714 per month. Half of all workers earned less than this and half earned more. This figure represents some distinct differences between the median incomes earned by men and women.


The total number of full-time workers in the United States was 114.2 million as of December 2017. The average monthly income varies by sex, education and race. Median salaries for the American workforce show wide variations between a spectrum of careers that range from white collar jobs to hospitality and tradespeople.

https://work.chron.com/average-american-monthly-salary-8614.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom