|
cravius posted:My whole point is that what people said in the past doesn't mean you should automatically discount all of the opinions they hold, idiot So when someone says something odious in the past, that shouldn't automatically render any of their other ideas invalid. Ok. I can get on board with that. But when someone says something odious, and then gets invited to your campus to say it some more, and the students say "We've heard that poo poo before and don't want our money funding him saying it again", and then the administration says "Okay, maybe we made a mistake inviting him"... THAT's a bad thing?
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Space Gopher kind of covered what I was going to say about how commencement speakers are kind of a different game than lecture/panel/debate people. My grad school commencement was in 2006 and our university opted to invite John McCain to give the commencement address. We'd had some conservative/republican speakers come through the previous year and be part of panels or lecture series about globalism or military intervention or whatever else over the course of the previous year with a handful of people protesting outside the venue and some pointed audience questions but nothing outrageous, and there really wasn't any sort of air of outrage about these people being asked to come speak on a topic relevant to a lot of people's studies even though this was a leftist-as-gently caress school that probably had very few students who shared their views. If you really didn't want to hear them speak, you could always skip the panel, so whatever. Commencement is different. I was getting my MA and my parents and family wanted to attend and there was only one commencement which was not technically mandatory, but is a pretty major part of the entire program. People were upset not only because they didn't agree with McCain's politics, but because their graduation was essentially being used as an early campaign stop (McCain also gave a speech at Bob Jones University that same spring, and both were treated as initial forays into the 2008 primaries). As a result, half of the people who gave speeches prior to McCain's got rid of their original remarks and just complained about McCain. The few people who tried to give regular canned responses got booed by a large portion of the crowd. A bunch of people got up and turned around or walked out during McCain's speech. Our school president called the student body cowards. McCain's assistant called the student body "idiots" in a newspaper. Nothing McCain said that day had anything to do with his policy positions or defending legislature he passed or fought in Congress, it was just a chance for him to look presidential and prove he's a moderate for giving a speech at a fundamentalist Christian university and a school with a full on Marxist economics department in the same month. I don't know what this story illustrates, but my undergraduate commencement speech was just the chancellor giving an inspirational speech and giving awards to a couple of retiring professors and them saying some cheery stuff too. It wasn't as exciting as having a famous person tell us to follow our dreams and work hard, but it also didn't basically ruin the whole day. My brother's commencement speaker was Cornel West, and his speech was super generic too. I only remember it because afterwards my uncle was making fun of his hair and teeth and doing a Cornel West impersonation that might as well have been Amos or Andy, which is weird because it's not like West doesn't have a distinct and mockable speech pattern external from being nakedly racist, but that's my extended family! Or it might be, as an academic I have a safe space surrounding me at all times and thus have been unable to see or speak to these relatives since mid-2006.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Arthur Crackpot posted:But when someone says something odious, and then gets invited to your campus to say it some more, and the students say "We've heard that poo poo before and don't want our money funding him saying it again", and then the administration says "Okay, maybe we made a mistake inviting him"... THAT's a bad thing? Private universities have the right to determine how to allocate resources to speakers, but they have an obligation to their students not to allow them to shut down voices they find disagreeable or distasteful. Saying that anyone who departs from liberal orthodoxy is so self-evidently wrong as to be unworthy of consideration, or that anyone who criticizes a minority group is perpetrating oppression, is contrary to the exchange and testing of viewpoints that should be part of the university mission. That includes controversial topics. Saying "THERE CAN BE NO DISSENT WHATSOEVER ABOUT RAPE CULTURE" just moves the interrogation and discussion from lecture halls and classrooms to locker rooms and private parties. An idea should be able to stand up to scrutiny, even if you think that scrutiny is ill-intentioned. It kind of gets to the heart of what a college is supposed to do. IMO, one of the things that students need to learn in order to prepare them for life in the adult world is how to have a respectful discussion with people that they fundamentally disagree with. Students are going to encounter people who think that their identities, opinions, and views are ridiculous or contemptible, and they are going to have to find a way to productively work with them that doesn't involve shouting them down or trying to shame them, because that isn't always going to be an option. More generally, the entire idea of "safe spaces" on campus is ridiculous, because an academic institution is already a safe space. If students, in the safety of a moderated classroom, can't deal with examining violence or sexism or judging people for being fat or whatever else they feel they need to be warned about lest they fall into an emotional tailspin, they need to find a way to deal those stressors, because in adult life, those don't come in easily digestible one hour chunks. But I know I'm an outlier; I think swimming, numeracy, and boxing/jujitsu should be mandatory classes for all students.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that the majority of protests against conservative speakers are based on a considered rejection of their views rather than a rejection of their political allegiances with a dash of virtue signaling thrown in. Well, I agree that students should be trained in how to throw a proper punch and knock George Will's lights out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that the majority of protests against conservative speakers are based on a considered rejection of their views rather than a rejection of their political allegiances with a dash of virtue signaling thrown in. im actually just laughing at all of this, what a post holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
One of the most important things a college can do is train students to respectfully disagree with differing opinions by delivering a solid right cross to the face, followed by repeated blows to the solar plexus to suffocate the opponent. Then they can evade the pig cops with their amazing swimming skills they also learned at university.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that the majority of protests against conservative speakers are based on a considered rejection of their views rather than a rejection of their political allegiances with a dash of virtue signaling thrown in. Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
It's too bad Osama bin Laden is dead, I think he'd be really great on the university speaker tour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
botany posted:e.g. security concerns, as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. So conservative students need to get more violent so the Academy fears them like they do agitating leftist groups? What could possibly go wrong? The thing that I haven't seen discussed here is, Universities, at least public ones, do not exist In a vacuum, but rather to serve the public that supports them. Look at the episode last year at Missouri with BLM and Melissa Click and all that. University leftists and administrators patted themselves on the back for a job well done, but the people who pay the bills saw it as a complete disaster, as did the citizens of the state. Enrollment and budgets are way off as a result. At the end of the day, it's a business like any other, as the feckless administrators at Missouri have learned the hard way
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's too bad Osama bin Laden is dead, I think he'd be really great on the university speaker tour. I know you're being sarcastic, but if the ghost of UBL gave a two hour lecture on the history of Al Queda from its founding through his flight from Tora Bora, you could pack lecture halls at West Point, the War College, and probably any political science department in the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:So conservative students need to get more violent so the Academy fears them like they do agitating leftist groups? What could possibly go wrong? Public services aren't businesses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Public services aren't businesses. Thank for the clarification Effectronica, arguing in good faith as usual. Perhaps you can explain where public universities and colleges get their funding, and explain further, including Missouri as an example, how public opinion effects said funding. I'm leading you to water, friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
BTW, we're not gonna have a debate about rape statistics in this thread. For now, assume the poo poo written on here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243011 is absolutely true, and more than 1 in 10 counts as an epidemic. Take this as gospel even if you personally disagree with it for whatever reason (make the thread if you do tho). Argue the merits of Campus speakers' ideas about sexual assault based on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Thank for the clarification Effectronica, arguing in good faith as usual. Perhaps you can explain where public universities and colleges get their funding, and explain further, including Missouri as an example, how public opinion effects said funding. I'm leading you to water, friend. Public funding is pretty much the opposite of being a business, you tubby ol' suburbanite, you.  Maybe when you're done having a midlife crisis you can drop that and go straight to "universities must blindly follow whatever politics the majority holds", such that we can get full-out into you justifying Nazism. ^_^
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I know you're being sarcastic, but if the ghost of UBL gave a two hour lecture on the history of Al Queda from its founding through his flight from Tora Bora, you could pack lecture halls at West Point, the War College, and probably any political science department in the country. If he showed up in a Che shirt, he could sell out any university in the US
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:So conservative students need to get more violent so the Academy fears them like they do agitating leftist groups? What could possibly go wrong? that's already a thing, as evidenced by the sarkeesian cancellation due to death threats. the rest of your post is tied up with the unfortunate for-profit monetization of US universities and that's a whole topic to itself. you're right of course that cancellation decisions can and do impact university funding, and that universities must and usually do take this into account when making these types of decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Public funding is pretty much the opposite of being a business, you tubby ol' suburbanite, you. Nope, I come from a long line of academics, and understand the value of free pursuit of ideas. Do you understand how public funding is allocated in the US? I'm going to assume by your statement, and honestly your track record as noted shitposter Effectronica, that you don't. Perhaps do a little reading about how state budgets are negotiated and rejoin the conversation when you're a little less upset and ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I know you're being sarcastic, but if the ghost of UBL gave a two hour lecture on the history of Al Queda from its founding through his flight from Tora Bora, you could pack lecture halls at West Point, the War College, and probably any political science department in the country. And when he spent his time deriding the great satan and proselytizing Wahhabism he would get run off the stage by the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:If he showed up in a Che shirt, he could sell out any university in the US Haha, because colleges are filled with communists and socialists! El-oh-el, I hope you've copyrighted this very funny and above all original joke before someone else steals it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Nope, I come from a long line of academics, and understand the value of free pursuit of ideas. Do you understand how public funding is allocated in the US? I'm going to assume by your statement, and honestly your track record as noted shitposter Effectronica, that you don't. Perhaps do a little reading about how state budgets are negotiated and rejoin the conversation when you're a little less upset and ignorant. How about you explain it to us instead of being a smartass? Especially since this is integral to your argument. drat I can't get over DR's dank rear end post  "Virtue Signalling" good poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:More generally, the entire idea of "safe spaces" on campus is ridiculous, because an academic institution is already a safe space. If students, in the safety of a moderated classroom, can't deal with examining violence or sexism or judging people for being fat or whatever else they feel they need to be warned about lest they fall into an emotional tailspin, they need to find a way to deal those stressors, because in adult life, those don't come in easily digestible one hour chunks. Can you please define "safe space" and give an example of circumstances and places in which a real college would designate an area as a safe spcae?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:How about you explain it to us instead of being a smartass? Especially since this is integral to your argument. Dollars to donuts he doesn't actually know himself. quote:drat I can't get over DR's dank rear end post "Ugh, I hate when people virtue signal. I just want everyone to know that. That I hate virtue signaling. Do you understand? I am virtuous because I hate virtue signaling. Are you getting these signals about my virtue?!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
botany posted:that's already a thing, as evidenced by the sarkeesian cancellation due to death threats. Then we are agreed. Fringe groups from either side threatening violence to stifle free speech is the antithesis of what the academy should be, and is setting an absolutely terrible precedent for the future. Furthermore, in an era of increasingly politicized funding of public higher education, it's fundamentally bad decision making by leadership to antagonize the people they are asking for money from. This isn't all that complicated, but surprisingly, not obvious to the very people who need most to understand how this works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Nope, I come from a long line of academics, and understand the value of free pursuit of ideas. Do you understand how public funding is allocated in the US? I'm going to assume by your statement, and honestly your track record as noted shitposter Effectronica, that you don't. Perhaps do a little reading about how state budgets are negotiated and rejoin the conversation when you're a little less upset and ignorant. I suggest you calm down. Don't want you having any heart attacks on us or anything  . Anyways, this is a lot of work to dance around your belief that everything is a business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:How about you explain it to us instead of being a smartass? Especially since this is integral to your argument. Well, I've sat on budget committees for a very large public university system as a consultant in the past. It's mostly really boring, but I'll tell you this, a single citizen who can get the ear of some junior assemblyman about some issue they care deeply about, can be a real fly in the ointment, and make administrators wish that they didn't have to come hat in hand to the State for funding. I've watched what's happened at Missouri and UTenn Law over this last year with complete fascination that the administrators thought pissing off huge numbers of tax payers, in such public fashion, was going to work out well for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Then we are agreed. Fringe groups from either side threatening violence to stifle free speech is the antithesis of what the academy should be, and is setting an absolutely terrible precedent for the future. Furthermore, in an era of increasingly politicized funding of public higher education, it's fundamentally bad decision making by leadership to antagonize the people they are asking for money from. This isn't all that complicated, but surprisingly, not obvious to the very people who need most to understand how this works. we're not quite in agreement i'm afraid. unlike you i think students absolutely should speak their minds about guest speakers, and protest if they deem it necessary. such protest is also an integral part of what the academy should be. (obviously death threats are not included in that.) and the university administration should have the possibility to refuse speakers if they have reason to believe that the speakers will endanger the safety of the students or themselves. I am perfectly comfortable with the specific instances of banned speakers we have discussed in this thread. all of those were examples of the system working as intended: students engaging with stated positions, protesting these decisions, universities weighing their options and deciding either to let people speak anyway or disinvite speakers if they thought them to be a safety hazard. as for the rest, i think universities should be funded to a large degree by the state in order to make them independent of donors, but you go to war with the higher education system you have, not the higher education system you want, i suppose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I suggest you calm down. Don't want you having any heart attacks on us or anything Sure Effectronica, I'm touched by your concern. I'm healthy and having a nice glass of cab sav right now. I'm not dancing around the point. Ideally, higher Ed would be self sufficient and not dependent on the political process, but that's not the case, and as such, those institutions have to battle for budget dollars with lots of other players like Transportation, Mental Health, and Law Enforcement, to name a few of the heavy hitters at the state level. Politicians who determine where the money is going are elected, and at least to some degree, responsible to the electorate. While you are technically correct, in the narrowest way possible, that public universities aren't a business, they are still subject to public opinion and a lot of other forces similar to how a business operates. It's quite ignorant to think otherwise, but, of course, I'd expect nothing less from you Effie!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
botany posted:we're not quite in agreement i'm afraid. unlike you i think students absolutely should speak their minds about guest speakers, and protest if they deem it necessary. such protest is also an integral part of what the academy should be. (obviously death threats are not included in that.) and the university administration should have the possibility to refuse speakers if they have reason to believe that the speakers will endanger the safety of the students or themselves. I am perfectly comfortable with the specific instances of banned speakers we have discussed in this thread. all of those were examples of the system working as intended: students engaging with stated positions, protesting these decisions, universities weighing their options and deciding either to let people speak anyway or disinvite speakers if they thought them to be a safety hazard. I think we do agree in fact. My only caveat is that the administration be open about the process, and fair in judgement, to the degree that it's possible, when rescinding invitations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Sure Effectronica, I'm touched by your concern. I'm healthy and having a nice glass of cab sav right now. So I guess we can chalk this up to you not knowing how businesses work, then? Because businesses aren't really funded by public opinion, and you're usually not really negotiating with them for the cost of goods and services (maybe you haggle with the cashier for the price of a box of cheerios, and we'll all be happy when you get tazed for doing that, but it's not a usual interaction). Your pronouncement is based on the ideological proposition that everything is a business and should be run for the bottom line, in this case suggesting that universities should endorse the killing of black people by cops in order to assuage the racist segments of Missouri's population. Much like how Wayne State University, in Detroit, should put racial quotas limiting the number of minority students so as not to offend the residents of Holland and Coldwater, Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So I guess we can chalk this up to you not knowing how businesses work, then? Because businesses aren't really funded by public opinion, and you're usually not really negotiating with them for the cost of goods and services (maybe you haggle with the cashier for the price of a box of cheerios, and we'll all be happy when you get tazed for doing that, but it's not a usual interaction). Your pronouncement is based on the ideological proposition that everything is a business and should be run for the bottom line, in this case suggesting that universities should endorse the killing of black people by cops in order to assuage the racist segments of Missouri's population. Much like how Wayne State University, in Detroit, should put racial quotas limiting the number of minority students so as not to offend the residents of Holland and Coldwater, Michigan. If you think that businesses aren't responsive to public opinion, then I'm not quite sure we have a common frame of reference within which we can have this conversation. New forum name, same tired schtick. Btw, I thought you got banned under this one too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:drat I can't get over DR's dank rear end post How exactly did we go from "college students are fragile little snowflakes who can't handle hearing things that they don't agree with," to "the little fuckers all agree with Milo, they just don't want to be seen doing so?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:How exactly did we go from "college students are fragile little snowflakes who can't handle hearing things that they don't agree with," to "the little fuckers all agree with Milo, they just don't want to be seen doing so?" it depends on how much you want to vacatly piss on academia for whatever reason, usually to redress past regrets or rejections from same
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:How exactly did we go from "college students are fragile little snowflakes who can't handle hearing things that they don't agree with," to "the little fuckers all agree with Milo, they just don't want to be seen doing so?" Also, lol at whoever was asking for proof that college students profess beliefs in order to fit in with their peer group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd be quite surprised if the average college student knows who Milo Yiannopoulos or George Will is until someone starts explaining why they shouldn't be allowed to speak. Why is that lol? Sounds like it should be trivially easy to provide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why is that lol? Sounds like it should be trivially easy to provide. it is, in pretty much all of sociology. college students, like other humans, adjust their belief system to fit in with their peer group, it's part of what bourdieu called the habitus. like, i can dig up studies on specific instances of this phenomenon if you really need me to but it's an established fact for every group of human beings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
botany posted:it is, in pretty much all of sociology. college students, like other humans, adjust their belief system to fit in with their peer group, it's part of what bourdieu called the habitus. like, i can dig up studies on specific instances of this phenomenon if you really need me to but it's an established fact for every group of human beings. The way DR talks about it he's very clearly saying that it's either unique to them or significantly more prevalent in them. Otherwise there's no reason to have brought it up in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Funny how, when someone agrees with you, the suggestion that they might be espousing their belief based on their desire to conform with the opinions of their peers suddenly becomes an extraordinary claim requiring rigorous evidence, but not the rest of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Okay, so when college students protest against a speaker they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When college students go to see a speaker they think they like, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When student leaders select speakers to come visit, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When speakers sign with agents to go speak on college campuses, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. I made this post so I could virtue signal and adjust my belief system to fit into my peer group. I hope you all respond with a virtue signalling post. It's a sociological fact that you will!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
I think the context of the speech is important to judging whether or not ideas about 'free speech' and academic freedom applies. Any speaker invited by a university associaties the university with themselves, even if only in a minor way. So if a university invites and gives air time to hate speech, it is absolutely valid to criticize the invitation and ask what value is provided. The whole idea of the marketplace of ideas isn't to give any special consideration to contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism, so doing things like seeking out people for the sake of 'balance' is not good. The views expressed must have value in and of themselves to be worth thinking about. And honestly, I don't think Milo has any actual creativity or intelligence between those ears of his, he is an empty vessel with a pretty face, that doesn't like women. That's it. That's not to say that it would be impossible to invite anyone opposed to feminism to speak, even invite them to university a strong feminist tradition, but the people they invite must have some meaningful insight. So dialectically, the 'antithesis' is formed in opposition to the thesis, but it's reason for existing is not simple contrarianism or any notions of universal 'balance', but because the 'thesis' is missing something, which is resolved when they combine to become the synthesis. tl;dr 'freedom of speech' is not a valid ground to dismiss complaints of the actions of an institution, and tolerating contrarianism is not the same thing as encouraging academic freedom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But I know I'm an outlier; I think swimming, numeracy, and boxing/jujitsu should be mandatory classes for all students.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 06:14
|
|